Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service Association et al

Filing 33

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service Association et al

Doc. 33

Case 5:04-cv-00371-JW

Document 33

Filed 06/03/2004

Page 1 of 2

1 KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & BERLINER LLP 2 STEPHEN D. ROTHSCHILD, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 132514 3 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-4506 4 TELEPHONE: [phone]

HOWARD E. KING, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 077012 E-MAIL:

1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 25TH FLOOR FACSIMILE: [phone]

[e-mail]

6 JOHN R. YATES (State Bar No. 120344) 7 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600 8 E-MAIL:

JEFFREY N. MAINER (State Bar No. 122385) BERMAN, MAUSNER & RESSER

Los Angeles, California 90025-1742 [e-mail] TELEPHONE: [phone] FACSIMILE: [phone]
10 DANIEL J. COOPER (State Bar No. 198460) 11 RANDY LEWIS (State Bar No. 210444) 12 13 14 15 16 17

General Counsel, Perfect 10, Inc.

Associate General Counsel, Perfect 10, Inc. Attorneys for Plaintiff PERFECT 10, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION PERFECT 10, INC., a California Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO. C 04-00371 (JCS) [Assigned for all purposes to Judge James Ware] Action Commenced: January 28, 2004

18 corporation,, 19 20

21 VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2914.060\39809.1

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF ERRATA TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ASSOCIATION; FIRST DATA CORP, a DISMISS corporation; CARDSERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation; MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, a corporation; HUMBOLDT BANK, a national banking association; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

1
Dockets.Justia.com

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF ERRATA TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 5:04-cv-00371-JW

Document 33

Filed 06/03/2004

Page 2 of 2

1

TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc. respectfully submits Plaintiff inadvertently gave an incorrect cite for the statement at page 10, lines

2 THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 3

4 the following errata to its opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss: 5

6 11-12, of the opposition, that "[a] suit should not be dismissed if it is possible to 7 hypothesize facts, consistent with the complaint, that would make out a claim." 8

The correct cite is Graehling v. Village of Lombard, 58 F.3d 295, 297 (7th

9 Cir.1995), citing Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 223210 33, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 10111 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Sanjuan v. American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology, 12 Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 250-51 (7th Cir.1994); and, American Nurses' Ass'n v. Illinois, 13 783 F.2d 716, 727 (7th Cir.1986).1 14 15 DATED: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1

June 3, 2004

KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & BERLINER, LLP By:

STEPHEN D. ROTHSCHILD Attorneys for Plaintiff PERFECT 10, INC.

26 Comparet-Cassani, 33 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1253 (C.D.Cal. 1999) (rev'd on other 27 28
KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & BERLINER LLP

Graehling was cited with approval for the above-cited proposition in Hawkins v.

grounds, 251 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2001)).

2914.060\39809.1

2

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF ERRATA TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS