Petroliam Nasional Berhad v., Inc.

Filing 94

MOTION to Amend/Correct 89 Answer to Amended Complaint -- DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER TO ADD COUNTERCLAIM AND ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE -- filed by, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 8/10/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 7/14/2011. Replies due by 7/21/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Slafsky, John) (Filed on 6/30/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 Attorneys for Defendant, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD, 13 Plaintiff, 14 vs. 15 GODADDY.COM, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO: 09-CV-5939 PJH [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER TO ADD COUNTERCLAIM AND ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Upon Defendant, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Add Counterclaim and Additional Affirmative Defense, in consideration of Plaintiff Petroliam Nasional Berhad’s Opposition, Defendant’s Reply, and the supporting declarations and exhibits filed in connection with the briefing on this Motion, and good cause appearing therefor; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend is GRANTED. Defendant will promptly file 26 the Amended Answer and Counterclaim attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of John L. 27 Slafsky in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend. 28 Dated: _________________ [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND __________________________________ The Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Judge CASE NO: 09-CV-5939 PJH

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?