Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Filing 85

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS TO MAY 4, 2011 re 84 Stipulation filed by GoDaddy.com, Inc. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/20/11. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 Petroliam Nasional Berhad, Plaintiff, vs. GoDaddy.com, Inc. Defendant. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 09-CV-5939 PJH STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS TO MAY 4, 2011 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Petroliam Nasional Berhad (“Petroliam”) and 19 Defendant GoDaddy.com, Inc. (“Go Daddy”), by and though their undersigned counsel, stipulate 20 and agree to continue the hearing on Go Daddy’s Motion to Dismiss Petroliam’s First Amended 21 Complaint from Wednesday, April 27, 2011 to Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. 22 In support of this stipulation and request, the parties declare: 23 1. 24 Go Daddy filed its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint on January 31, 2011, noticing a hearing date of March 9, 2011. 25 2. 26 April 20, 2011. 27 3. 28 to April 27, 2011. On March 4, 2011, the Court issued an Order, sua sponte, continuing the hearing to On April 18, 2011, the Court issued and Order, sua sponte, continuing the hearing 4330776_1 STIP. TO CONTINUE HEARING Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH 1 2 3 4. This continuance is necessary because Go Daddy’s lead counsel cannot attend a hearing on April 27, 2011, as he has long-standing plans to be out of town on business that day. 5. The other time modifications in the case were two stipulated 30-day extensions of 4 time to respond to the initial complaint, filed on January 11, 2010 and February 9, 2010, and a 5 stipulated 30-day extension of time to respond to the First Amended Complaint filed on December 6 27, 2010. The Court granted these requests. On August 30, 2010, Go Daddy also requested that a 7 noticed hearing on Petroliam’s motion to strike affirmative defenses be postponed until final 8 decision on Go Daddy’s pending motion for judgment on the pleadings; on September 8, 2010, the 9 Court granted Go Daddy’s request, and the issue became moot when Go Daddy’s motion for 10 11 12 judgment on the pleadings was granted with leave to amend. 6. There are no further dates or deadlines currently scheduled in this case, so this continuance will not affect the case schedule. 13 Dated: April 19, 2011 15 By: 16 Dated: April 19, 2011 20 By: 21 Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED. Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Judge ilton lis J. Ham NO 27 RT hyl Judge P ER -2STIP. TO CONTINUE HEARING Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH A H 28 . ERED O ORD IT IS S R NIA By: FO April 20, 2011 Dated: ________________________ S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 26 . Attorneys for Defendant Go Daddy.com, Inc. 23 25 /s/ John L. Slafsky John L. Slafsky LI 22 24 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation S 19 /s/ Perry R. Clark . Attorneys for Plaintiff Petroliam Nasional Berhad 17 18 LAW OFFICES OF PERRY R. CLARK UNIT ED 14 N F D IS T IC T O R C 4330776_1 1 2 3 4 5 DECLARATION OF CONSENT The undersigned certifies that concurrence in the filing of this document was obtained from the other signatories. Dated: April 19, 2011 6 7 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation By: /s/ John L. Slafsky John L. Slafsky 8 9 Attorneys for Defendant Go Daddy.com, Inc. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3STIP. TO CONTINUE HEARING Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH 4330776_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?