McKinney v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 88

RESPONSE (re 83 MOTION to Dismiss SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ) Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed byMary McKinney. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Avila, Sara) (Filed on 4/4/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION

10

Milstein Adelman, LLP

2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
Santa Monica, California 90405

11

MARY MCKINNEY, Individually and on
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

12

CASE NO: 5:10-cv-01177-JW
CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff,
13

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
14
15
16

GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
Date:
April 25, 2011
HTC CORP., a Delaware Corporation; and T- Time:
9:00 A.M.
MOBILE USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation. Courtroom: 8
Judge:
Hon. James Ware
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22

Having considered Defendants Google, Inc. and HTC Corp.’s Motion to dismiss, and good
cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES the motion.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: ________________

_____________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
THE HONORABLE JAMES S. WARE

27
28

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING GOOGLE’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

Error! Unknown document property name.