Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Filing 31

REPLY to Response to Motion re 23 MOTION for Protective Order Pending Plaintiff's Identification of its Allegedly Misappropriated Trade Secrets; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed byFusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Doolittle, Patrick) (Filed on 3/2/2010)

Download PDF
Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD Doc. 31 1 COUNTY COUNSEL Richard E. Winnie 68048 2 Office of the County Counsel, County of Alameda 1221 Oak Street, Suite 450 3 Oakland, CA 94612 4 WULFSBERG REESE COLVIG & FIRSTMAN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 5 H. James Wulfsberg - 046192 Kris A. Cox - 136504 6 300 Lakeside Drive, 24th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-3524 7 Telephone: (510) 835-9100 Facsimile: (510) 451-2170 8 Attorneys for Counter-Defendant County of Alameda 9 10 WULFSBERG REESE COLVIG & FIRSTMAN 11 12 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KAISER CENTER 300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LAW OFFICES 13 UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a Maryland 14 corporation 15 16 vs. 17 N.V. HEATHORN, EDWARD, W. HEATHORN, NORMAN T.R. HEATHORN, 18 WENDY C. HEATHORN, and DELORES E. HEATHORN 19 20 Defendants. _______________________________________ 21 N.V. HEATHORN, EDWARD, W. HEATHORN, NORMAN T.R. HEATHORN, 22 WENDY C. HEATHORN, and DELORES E. HEATHORN 23 Counter-Claimants, 24 vs. 25 UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND 26 GUARANTY COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a 27 public entity, and ROES 1-100, 28 Counter-Defendants. 0002-029\2075126.1 No. C 03 2156 CW [PROPOSED ORDER] GRANTING COUNTER-DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S MOTION TO DISMISS, OR ALTERNATIVELY TO STAY ACTION [FRCP 12 (b) (6)] Date: Time: Dept.: August 15, 2003 10:00 a.m. Hon. Claudia Wilken Courtroom 2, 4th Floor Oakland, California Plaintiffs, PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING CO OF ALAMEDA'S MOTION TODISMISS Dockets.Justia.com 1 1 The Motion of Counter-Defendant County of Alameda ("County") came on regularly 2 for hearing before the Court on August 15, 2003. Kris Cox appeared on behalf of the County and 3 _____________ appeared on behalf of Defendants and Counter-Complainants N.V. Heathorn, 4 Edward W. Heathorn, Wendy C. Heathorn, and Delores E. Heathorn ("Heathorn"). ____________ 5 appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant United States Fidelity and Guaranty 6 Company (USF&G). The Court, having considered the briefs, pleadings, and oral arguments of 7 counsel of each of the parties, and good cause appearing therefore, finds as follows: 8 Counter-Defendant County Of Alameda's Motion To Dismiss, Or Alternatively To Stay 9 Action Motion is granted as to Counter-Complainant Heathorn's Third and Fourth Causes of 10 Action. WULFSBERG REESE COLVIG & FIRSTMAN 11 12 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3524 PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KAISER CENTER 300 LAKESIDE DRIVE, 24TH FLOOR TELEPHONE (510) 835-9100 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Date: _____________ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0002-029\2075126.1 LAW OFFICES By___________________________________ HON. CLAUDIA WILKEN Judge of the United States District Court Northern District of California 2 PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S MOT TO DISMISS

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?