Apple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc.

Filing 56

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Amend Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 7/30/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2007) Modified on 7/31/2007 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Podfitness, Inc. Doc. 56 Case 4:06-cv-05805-SBA Document 56 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Case No. C 06-5805 SBA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND DIVISION) APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. PODFITNESS, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. C 06-5805 SBA ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, the Court, having considered the stipulation to amend Apple Computer, Inc.'s ("Apple") complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation of the parties is approved. Plaintiff Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") may file its First Amended Complaint with the Court to reflect Apple's recent corporate name change, and to include two additional causes of action for breach of contract and cybersquatting which Apple contends are based upon newly discovered evidence regarding Defendant's actions. Defendant shall file its Answer or motion to dismiss Apple's First Amended Complaint within 30 days of the filing of the First Amended Complaint with the Court. Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:06-cv-05805-SBA Document 56 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Case No. C 06-5805 SBA SO ORDERED, this _30th__ day of July, 2007. ___________________________________ Honorable Sandra B. Armstrong United States District Court Case 4:06-cv-05805-SBA Document 56 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 X PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Diego. My business address is Fish & Richardson P.C., 12390 El Camino Real, San Diego, California 92130. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the foregoing action. I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for personal delivery, for mailing with United States Postal Service, for facsimile, and for overnight delivery by Federal Express, Express Mail, or other overnight service. On July 30, 2007, I caused a copy of the following document(s): [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT to be served on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as follows: William S. Farmer Jacob Alpern Collette Erickson Farmer & O'Neill LLP 235 Pine Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94104-2733 Telephone: (415) 788-4646 Facsimile: (415) 788-6929 Charles J. Veverka Robert A. Aycock Mark W. Ford Brett I. Johnson Workman, Nydegger & Seeley P.C. 1000 Eagle Gate Tower 60 East South Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 533-9800 Facsimile: (801) 328-1707 MAIL: Attorneys For Defendant PODFITNESS, INC. Attorneys For Defendant PODFITNESS, INC. Such correspondence was deposited, postage fully paid, with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 30, 2007, at San Diego, California. Nicole C. Pino 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Case No. C 06-5805 SBA Case 4:06-cv-05805-SBA Document 56 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10745129.doc 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO AMEND PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Case No. C 06-5805 SBA

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?