Digital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc.,
Filing
442
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/24/06. (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2006)
Digital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc.,
Doc. 442
Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS
Document 442
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452 (dkramer@wsgr.com) COLLEEN BAL, State Bar No. 167637 (cbal@wsgr.com) DAVID L. LANSKY, State Bar No. 199952 (dlansky@wsgr.com) WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 *E-FILED 4/24/06* Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Google Inc. P. CRAIG CARDON, State Bar No. 168646 BRIAN R. BLACKMAN, State Bar No. 196996 KENDALL M. BURTON, State Bar No. 228720 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4106 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 TIMOTHY H. KRATZ, (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) LUKE ANDERSON, (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ROBERT J. WADDELL, JR. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1170 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 2100 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 443-5500 Facsimile: (404) 443-5751 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, Digital Envoy, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
DIGITAL ENVOY, INC., Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO.: C 04 01497 RS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE C 04 01497 RS
C:\Documents and Settings\nvg\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK11\Stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.DOC
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS
Document 442
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 2 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiff/counterdefendant Digital Envoy, Inc. ("Digital Envoy") and defendant/ counterclaimant Google Inc. ("Google") hereby stipulate, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) and 41(c), as follows: (1) Digital Envoy's claims against Google are dismissed with prejudice; (2) Google's counterclaims against Digital Envoy are dismissed with prejudice; (3) Each party bears its own costs and fees; and (4) Each party hereby waives its right of appeal.
Dated: April 24, 2006
MCGUIREWOODS LLP By: /s/ Timothy H. Kratz Timothy H. Kratz Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant DIGITAL ENVOY, INC.
Dated: April 24, 2006
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation By: /s/ David L. Lansky David L. Lansky Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant GOOGLE INC.
ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. April 24 Dated:_____________, 2006
____________________________________ HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG XXXXXXXXXXXX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE C 04 01497 RS
1
C:\Documents and Settings\nvg\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK11\Stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.DOC
Case 5:04-cv-01497-RS
Document 442
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 3 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE C 04 01497 RS
CERTIFICATION I, David L. Lansky, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that all parties have concurred in this filing.
DATED: April 24, 2006
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation
By:
/s/ David L. Lansky David L. Lansky
Attorneys for Defendant / Counterclaimant GOOGLE INC.
2
C:\Documents and Settings\nvg\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK11\Stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.DOC
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?