Nabors v. Google, Inc.

Filing 34

STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Request to Extend Time to File Reply re 32 Stipulation. Reply due 4/18/2011. Signed by Judge James Ware on 4/6/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2011)

Download PDF
Nabors v. Google, Inc. Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MATTHEW L. LARRABEE (No. 97147) matthew.larrabee@dechert.com DECHERT LLP One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94111-3513 Telephone: 415.262.4500 Facsimile: 415.262.4555 STEVEN B.WEISBURD (No. 171490) steven.weisburd@dechert.com DECHERT LLP 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2010 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: 512.394.3000 Facsimile: 512.394.3001 Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. SARA D. AVILA (No. 263213) MILSTEIN, ADELMAN & KERGER, LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Facsimile: (310) 396-9635 E-Mail: savila@maklawyers.com ADAM P. PLANT WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-9576 Facsimile: (205) 328-9669 E-Mail: aplant@wdklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nathan Nabors UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NATHAN NABORS, Individually and on behalf of All others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, Case No. 5:10-CV-03897-JW STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME 17 v. 18 GOOGLE INC., a Delaware Corporation, 19 Defendant. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D ECHERT LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO STIPULATION CASE NO. 5:10-CV-03897-JW Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D ECHERT LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, the parties request an order changing the time in which defendant Google Inc. ("Google") must file a reply in support of its motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by Nathan Nabors ("Nabors"): WHEREAS, Google currently must file its reply on April 11, 2011; WHEREAS, Nabors has agreed, subject to this Court's approval, to extend Google's deadline for filing its reply until April 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, this extension will alter a time frame set by the local rules of this Court and therefore requires a Court order for such an extension; NOW THEREFORE, Nabors and Google through their counsel of record, and subject to this Court's approval, stipulate to the following: Google's deadline for filing a reply in support of its motion to dismiss Nabors' First Amended Complaint should be extended from April 11, 2011 until April 18, 2011. Although the parties are not requesting that the current April 25, 2011 hearing date be continued, should the Court choose to continue the hearing sua sponte, the schedule of the case will be extended until such time as the Court may hear the motion to dismiss. DATED: April 5, 2011 MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP By: /s/ Sara Avila SARA AVILA Attorneys for Plaintiff NATHAN NABORS DATED: April 5, 2011 WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC By: /s/ Adam Plant ADAM PLANT Attorneys for Plaintiff NATHAN NABORS 1 STIPULATION CASE NO. 5:10-CV-03897-JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATED: April 5, 2011 DECHERT LLP By: /s/ Matthew L. Larrabee MATTHEW LARRABEE Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 6, 2011 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D ECHERT LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO HON. JAMES WARE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 STIPULATION CASE NO. 5:10-CV-03897-JW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D ECHERT LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO CERTIFICATION I, Matthew Larrabee, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file this STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B., I hereby attest that Sara Avila and Adam Plant concurred in this filing. 3 STIPULATION CASE NO. 5:10-CV-03897-JW

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?