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)

Download PDF
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?