Stiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 87

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 84 Motion for Leave to File (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2008)

Download PDF
Stiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al Doc. 87 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ZOLTAN STEINER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants. No. C 07-04486 SBA ORDER [Docket No. 84] On March 18, 2008, defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC ("AT&T") filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (the "Motion") [Docket No. 63]. The Motion was set for hearing on April 29, 2008. See Docket No. 63. On April 10, 2008, plaintiffs the Stieners filed their Memorandum in Opposition regarding the Motion. See Docket No. 76. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(c), AT&T's reply, if any, was due on April 15, 2008. It did not file a Reply Memorandum regarding the Motion (the "Reply"), however, until Friday, April 25, 2008. See Docket No. 85. On this same day, AT&T filed a Motion for Leave to File the Reply [Docket No. 84], indicating a clerical error prevented its timely filing. Docket No. 84 at 2. AT&T also indicated it filed the Reply the same day it detected the error. Id. 4. Given the Court had taken the matter under submission, and the hearing off calendar, and thus AT&T could not present its arguments orally, AT&T requested the Court to allow it file the Reply late. Id. Based on the foregoing, and the lack of prejudice to the Stieners, the Court GRANTS AT&T's Motion for Leave to File the Reply [Docket No. 84]. IT IS SO ORDERED. April 28, 2008 _________________________________ Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge

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?