Eclectic Properties East, LLC et al v. The Marcus & Millichap Company et al

Filing 120

ORDER by Judge Whyte granting in part 115 Ex Parte Application. (rmwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On July 16, 2009, plaintiffs submitted an ex parte application seeking clarification of the July 13, 2009 order regarding the briefing on the motion to dismiss by the Morabito Defendants. The discussion with counsel at the July 10, 2009 hearing and the resulting written order was clear: plaintiffs' substantive opposition to the Morabito defendants' motion to dismiss was to be due on July 17, 2009, as the parties had stipulated and the court had previously ordered in early June. The parties were to meet and confer regarding the supplementation of the briefs to address the personal jurisdiction issues raised by the Morabito defendants' motion, while maintaining the September 25, 2009 hearing date. Nevertheless, plaintiffs appear not to be in a position to file their opposition by July 17, 2009, and the court in its discretion hereby grants them another week in which to file their opposition to the Morabito defendants' motion to dismiss. That opposition shall be filed and served ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX PARTE REQUEST--No. C-09-0511 RMW TER E-FILED on 7/17/09 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ECLECTIC PROPERTIES EAST, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE MARCUS & MILLICHAP COMPANY, a California corporation, et al., Defendants. No. C-09-0511 RMW ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX PARTE REQUEST [Re Docket No. 115] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 no later than July 24, 2009. Defendants' reply papers shall be filed as presently scheduled, on or before September 2, 2009. Plaintiffs may supplement their opposition to address the personal jurisdiction issues upon completion of the jurisdictional discovery, and defendants may file a reply to that supplement, if it is not feasible to incorporate that supplemental reply into defendants' reply papers due on September 2, 2009. DATED: 7/17/09 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX PARTE REQUEST--No. C-09-0511 RMW TER 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiffs: Bonny E. Sweeney James L. Davidson Phong L. Tran Stuart Andrew Davidson bonnys@csgrr.com jdavidson@csgrr.com ptran@csgrr.com sdavidson@csgrr.com Counsel for Defendants The Marcus & Millichap Company, Sovereign Investment Company, Sovereign Scranton LLC, Sovereign CC, LLC, and Sovereign JF, LLC Daniel E. Jackson djackson@kvn.com Daniel Edward Purcell dpurcell@kvn.com Counsel for Defendants Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services Inc., Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Company, Marcus Muirhead, Sean Perkin, Donald Emas, Andrew Lesher, Stewart Weston, Brice Head and Bret King David Charles Scheper dscheper@obsklaw.com Counsel for Defendants Paul A. Morabito and Baruk Management, Inc. Michael John Hassen mjh@jmbm.com Christopher H. Doyle chd@jmbm.com Counsel for Defendants Tibarom NY LLC and Tibarom PA LLC Timothy Alan Horton thorton@mckennalong.com Counsel for Defendant PGP Valuation, Inc. Michael Lloyd Smith mls@mmker.com Counsel for Defendants Glen D. Kunofsky and Daisy Gomez Joshua A. Gratch jag@gratchlawgroup.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 7/17/09 TER Chambers of Judge Whyte ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX PARTE REQUEST--No. C-09-0511 RMW TER 3

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?