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)
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?