Walsh v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 18

Proposed Order re 17 MOTION to Strike and for a More Definite Statement by Apple, Inc.. (Liburt, Joseph) (Filed on 1/29/2009)

Walsh v. Apple, Inc. et al

Doc. 18

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

LYNNE C. HERMLE (STATE BAR NO. 99779) JOSEPH C. LIBURT (STATE BAR NO. 155507) JESSICA R. PERRY (STATE BAR NO. 209321) ALLISON E. PITIGOI (STATE BAR NO. 242211) SITTHIKIT CHARIYASATIT (STATE BAR NO. 252028) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 650-614-7401 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WALSH, an individual, DAVID KALUA, an individual, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant.

CASE NO. 05:08-cv-04918 JF [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT APPLE INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEF. APPLE INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (CASE NO. 05:08-CV-04918-JF

Dockets.Justia.com

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 Dated:

The Motion to Strike and For a More Definite Statement filed by Defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple") came on regularly for hearing on Friday, March 13, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 before the Honorable Jeremy Fogel. All parties were represented by counsel. The Court, having heard the arguments of all parties and having considered all documents filed in support of and in opposition to this motion, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Apple's Motion to Strike any references and attempts to incorporate California

Labor Code Sections 203 and 226 into Plaintiffs' first claim for unfair competition under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. is GRANTED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 2. Apple's Motion for a More Definite Statement as to Plaintiffs' first claim is

GRANTED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Plaintiffs shall file a Third Amended Complaint no later than ___________________, and Apple shall answer or otherwise respond no later than 20 days after the filing and service of the Third Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Jeremy Fogel

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEF. APPLE INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (CASE NO. 05:08-CV-04918-JF