Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al
Filing
189
MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by Anthony Chiu. (Seidman, Peter) (Filed on 9/28/2011)
1
8
PETER E. SEIDMAN (pro hac vice)
ANDREI V. RADO
ANNE MARIE VU (SBN 238771)
MELISSA RYAN CLARK (pro hac vice)
pseidman@milberg.com
arado@milberg.com
avu@milberg.com
mclark@milberg.com
MILBERG LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, New York 10119
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re iPhone Application Litigation
13
Case No. 10-cv-5878 LHK (PSG) (Lead)
REQUEST TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE
14
CMC Date: October 5, 2011
Time:
2:00 p.m.
Hon. Lucy H. Koh
15
16
17
18
19
TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Peter E. Seidman requests permission by the Court to appear telephonically at the abovereferenced matter on October 5, 2011, for the Case Management Conference.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Request to Appear by Telephone
Case No. 5:10-cv-5878-LHK
1
DATED:
September 28, 2011
/s/ Peter E. Seidman
2
Peter E. Seidman
3
PETER E. SEIDMAN (pro hac vice)
ANDREI V. RADO
ANNE MARIE VU (SBN 238771)
MELISSA RYAN CLARK (pro hac vice)
MILBERG LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, New York 10119
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
4
5
6
7
8
Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Request to Appear by Telephone
-2-
Case No. 5:10-cv-5878-LHK
1
2
3
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing was filed this 28th day of September 2011 through the
Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system, which automatically serves it to all counsel of record
in this action.
5
6
/s/ Peter E. Seidman
Peter E. Seidman
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Request to Appear by Telephone
-3-
Case No. 5:10-cv-5878-LHK
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?