Shloss v. Sweeney et al

Filing 53

STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' 21 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Strike, Carol Loeb Shloss's Amended Complaint filed byCarol Loeb Shloss. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Falzone, Anthony) (Filed on 1/25/2007) Modified on 2/6/2007, link to motion (cv, COURT STAFF).

Shloss v. Sweeney et al

Doc. 53

Case 5:06-cv-03718-JW

Document 53

Filed 01/25/2007

Page 1 of 2

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

LAWRENCE LESSIG ANTHONY T. FALZONE (SBN 190845) [e-mail] DAVID S. OLSON (SBN 231675) [e-mail] STANFORD LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, California 94305-8610 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] MARK A. LEMLEY (SBN 155830) [e-mail] MATTHEW M. WERDEGAR (SBN 20047) [e-mail] KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] BERNARD A. BURK (No. 118083) [e-mail] ROBERT SPOO (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4024 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION CAROL LOEB SHLOSS, Plaintiff, v. SEAN SWEENEY, in his capacity as trustee of the Estate of James Joyce, and THE ESTATE OF JAMES JOYCE Defendants. No. C 06 3718 JW HRL PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STRIKE, CAROL LOEB SHLOSS'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: Time: Judge: January 31, 2007 9:00 a.m. The Honorable James Ware

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION CASE NO. C 06 3718 JW HRL

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:06-cv-03718-JW

Document 53

Filed 01/25/2007

Page 2 of 2

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 Carol Loeb Shloss respectfully submits, pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), this Statement of Recent Decision in support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Strike, Carol Loeb Shloss's Amended Complaint. The Supreme Court has recently reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals granting a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a similar case. See MEDIMMUNE, INC. v. GENENTECH, INC., et al., 549 U.S. ___ (2007). (Exhibit A). Plaintiff particularly draws the Court's attention to note 11 of the attached case. DATED: January 25, 2007 STANFORD LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY

By: ________________/S/_________________ Anthony T. Falzone Attorneys for Plaintiff CAROL LOEB SHLOSS

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION CASE NO. C 06 3718 JW HRL

-1-