Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Filing 60

MOTION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-3 TO POSTPONE HEARING ON 55 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES -- re 55 MOTION to Strike GoDaddy's Affirmative Defenses CORRECTION OF DOCKET #54 filed by GoDaddy.com, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Slafsky, John) (Filed on 8/30/2010) Modified on 8/31/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc. Doc. 60 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 JOHN L. SLAFSKY, State Bar No. 195513 DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452 HOLLIS BETH HIRE, State Bar No. 203651 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 493-6811 jslafsky@wsgr.com dkramer@wsgr.com hhire@wsgr.com Attorneys for Defendant GODADDY.COM, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD, Plaintiff, vs. GODADDY.COM, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO: 09-CV-5939 PJH MOTION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-3 TO POSTPONE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton 4092817_1 28 MOTION TO POSTPONE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH Dockets.Justia.com 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 On August 3, 2010, Defendant GoDaddy.com, Inc. ("Go Daddy") filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and for an order finding Plaintiff Petroliam Nasional Berhad ("Plaintiff") liable for attorneys' fees (the "Dispositive Motion"). The hearing Go Daddy's Dispositive Motion is set for September 8, 2010, and the motion is fully briefed. On August 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion titled "Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses of GoDaddy." (The text of the motion, however, makes clear that Plaintiff seeks to strike all of Go Daddy's affirmative defenses.) Plaintiff set the hearing date for the Motion to Strike for September 29, 2010. With this hearing date, Go Daddy's opposition brief is due on September 8, 2010, the day of the hearing on the Dispositive Motion. See Local Rule 7-3. Go Daddy would then be forced to expend resources to oppose the Motion to Strike when the complaint itself could be dismissed in the near term, rendering the Motion to Strike moot. Depending on the schedule for decision on the Dispositive Motion, Plaintiff may also be required to reply to the opposition, and the parties may be required to argue the motion before the Dispositive Motion is resolved. Go Daddy seeks to minimize unnecessary expense by postponing the hearing date for the Motion to Strike until 5 weeks after the Dispositive Motion is decided. As Go Daddy has also requested an order finding Plaintiff liable for attorneys' fees, the minimization of fees may be in Plaintiff's interest as well. Go Daddy notes that Plaintiff could have filed its Motion to Strike anytime after the Answer was filed on March 11, 2010, but instead waited until August 25, 2010 (long after the 21-day deadline to file a Motion to Strike pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)). As Plaintiff has delayed this long in filing its Motion to Strike, surely there is no prejudice to Plaintiff in waiting until after the Dispositive Motion is decided to proceed with briefing for the Motion to Strike. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, Go Daddy has requested that Plaintiff stipulate to postponement of the hearing on the Motion to Strike, but Go Daddy received no response to this request. See Declaration of Hollis Hire ("Hire Decl."), 2, Ex. A. Also, pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, Go Daddy states: -1MOTION TO POSTPONE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH 4092817_1 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 MOTION TO POSTPONE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH The schedule modifications in this case include: o On two occasions, the parties stipulated to an extension of time to respond to the Complaint, for a total of 60 days. See Hire Decl. 3. o The parties also stipulated to continue the second Case Management Conference in this case by one week to accommodate a personal scheduling conflict of counsel for Plaintiff. See id. As stated above, Go Daddy seeks the enlargement of time to avoid unnecessary expense in responding to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, filed 167 days following the Answer and while a Dispositive Motion is pending. If Go Daddy's Dispositive Motion is granted, then the parties (and the Court) would have devoted resources to the belated Motion to Strike unnecessarily, as the decision on Dispositive Motion may render the Motion to Strike moot. If Go Daddy's request for an Order Finding Plaintiff Liable for Attorneys' Fees is granted, such mitigation of expense would be to the benefit of Plaintiff as well. The proposed time modification would not alter the schedule for the case, as no schedule has been set. See id. Dated: August 30, 2010 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation By: /s/ John L. Slafsky John L. Slafsky David E. Kramer Hollis Beth Hire . Attorneys for Defendant GODADDY.COM, INC. -2- 4092817_1

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?