ACP, Inc. v. Skypatrol, LLC et al
Filing
84
ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 77 Motion to Dismiss Skypatrol's counterclaim; denying 78 Motion to Dismiss Gordon Howard's counterclaims. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2016)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
ACP, INC.,
6
Case No. 13-cv-01572-PJH
Plaintiff,
5
v.
7
SKYPATROL, LLC, et al.,
8
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS SKYPATROL'S
COUNTERCLAIM; DENYING MOTION
TO DISMISS GORDON HOWARD'S
COUNTERCLAIMS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 77, 78
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiff ACP, Inc.’s motions to dismiss Skypatrol, LLC’s counterclaim and to
12
dismiss Gordon Howard Associates Inc.’s counterclaims came on for hearing before this
13
court on October 19, 2016. ACP and counterclaim-defendant Christopher Nicholson
14
appeared through their counsel, Rachel Kinney. Defendant Skypatrol appeared through
15
its counsel, Jason Yurasek. Defendant Gordon Howard Associates appeared through its
16
counsel, David Makman. Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully
17
considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing,
18
the court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss Skypatrol’s counterclaim (Dkt. 77) and
19
DENIES the motion to dismiss Gordon Howard Associates’ counterclaims (Dkt. 78), for
20
the reasons stated at the hearing.
21
Skypatrol shall have until November 16 to file an amended answer that provides
22
the specific who, what, when, and where regarding its fraud counterclaim, as well as facts
23
supporting an inference of intent and falsity. The amended answer shall not contain new
24
counterclaims. ACP will have 21 days to respond to the amended answer.
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 19, 2016
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
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?