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)

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: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 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 [phone]

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 [phone]

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