McKinney v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 117

RESPONSE (re 113 MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT ) filed byMary McKinney, Nathan Nabors. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint)(Avila, Sara) (Filed on 11/7/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

In re Google Phone Litigation

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Lead Case No. 5:10-cv-01177-EJD
(Consolidated with No.5:10-CV-03897EJD)
CLASS ACTION
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:

February 3, 2012
9:00 a.m.
1
Hon. Edward J. Davila

20

The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint (“Motion”) filed by

21

Defendants Inc. and HTC Corp. (“Defendants”) came on regularly for hearing on February 3,

22

2012, in Courtroom 1, on the fifth floor of the above-titled United States District Court at

23

9:00a.m., the Honorable Edward J. Davila presiding. After full consideration of the papers filed in

24

connection with this motion, the arguments of counsel and all other papers filed in this action,

25

Defendants’ Motion is hereby DENIED. Defendants are ordered to file an Answer to Plaintiffs’

26

Consolidated Amended Complaint within five (5) business days of this Order, and to participate

27

in a Rule 26(f) conference with Plaintiffs’ counsel within seven (7) business days of this Order.

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

CASE NO.: 5:10-CV-01177-EJD

1

IT IS SO ORDERED:

2
3

DATED: _______________, 2012

4

By: _________________________________
Hon. Edward J. Davila
United States District Court

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO.: 5:10-CV-01177-EJD