Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Filing 14

Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 14

Case 5:05-cv-02579-RMW

Document 14

Filed 08/24/2005

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 29

RICHARD L. KELLNER, SBN 171416 FRANK E. MARCHETTI, SBN 203185 KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 39th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3801 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] DARREN T. KAPLAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) GREGORY E. KELLER (To be admitted Pro Hac Vice) CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP 2300 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] SHAWN KHORRAMI, SBN 180411 LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN KHORRAMI 14550 Haynes Street, Third Floor Van Nuys, California 91411 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) Case No.: 5:05-cv-02579-RMW CLICK DEFENSE, INC., a Colorado corporation, Individually and on behalf of all ) ) E-FILING others similarly situated, ) ) CLICK DEFENSE, INC.'S MOTION TO Plaintiff, ) ENLARGE TIME ) vs. ) Date: September 2, 2005 ) Time: 9:00 a.m. GOOGLE, INC., et al, ) Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte ) Defendant )

NOTICE OF MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

1 CLICK DEFENSE INC.'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME CASE NO. C-05-02579-RMW
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:05-cv-02579-RMW

Document 14

Filed 08/24/2005

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 29

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 2, 2005, at 9:00a.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte of the United States District Court for the Northern District of District of California, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff, Click Defense, Inc. ("Click Defense"), will and hereby does move the Court to formally enlarge the time for Click Defense to serve and file its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(b). This motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Darren T. Kaplan, the arguments of counsel, and any other matters properly before the Court. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES On July 27, 2005, Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") moved to dismiss two of four causes of action asserted in Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion set a hearing date of September 2, 2005. Plaintiff's attorneys wrongfully assumed that their opposition to the motion would be due no earlier than 14 days prior to the date set for hearing as would be the procedure in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (see United States District Court for the Central District of California L.R. 7-9) instead of the 21days before the hearing required under the Court's Civil L.R. 7-3(a) Accordingly, Click Defense's attorneys served their opposition to the motion to dismiss on Google on August 19, 2005 rather than on August 12, 2005,. Only upon receipt of Google's reply did Click Defense's attorneys realize their error.

2 CLICK DEFENSE INC.'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME CASE NO. C-05-02579-RMW

Case 5:05-cv-02579-RMW

Document 14

Filed 08/24/2005

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 29

Click Defense's attorneys apologize to the Court and to Counsel for Google for their mistake and Click Defense's attorneys will not oppose the filing of a supplemental memorandum by defendant as was proposed in footnote 1 of Google's Reply. In order to make certain that this Court will consider Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and to preserve this record, Click Defense hereby requests that this Court formally grant Click Defense an enlargement of time to file its opposition on August 19, 2005 as a retroactive cure for Click Defense's inadvertent error. The litigants have offered extremely succinct briefing on this motion and it is doubtful that the shortened time Google received in which to craft its Reply worked any prejudice. Further, while we are mindful that the Court itself may suffer some inconvenience from the shortened time to consider Plaintiff's opposition, we trust that such inconvenience was minimized by the fact that Plaintiff's opposition totaled only seven pages. Civil L.R. 6-1(b) provides that a Court may order an enlargement of time "that alters an event or deadline already fixed by Court order or that involves papers required to be filed or lodged with the Court ." We would respectfully suggest that such an enlargement is appropriate here. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion to enlarge time and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: August 24, 2005 Respectfully submitted, CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP By: __________/s____________ Darren T. Kaplan (Admitted pro hac vice) And KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP and LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN KHORRAMI, Attorneys for Plaintiff
3 CLICK DEFENSE INC.'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME CASE NO. C-05-02579-RMW