Doe I et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
34
Letter Brief re 29 Letter Brief, Opposition to Defendants' Letter Brief filed byDoe I, Doe II, Doe III, Doe IV, Doe V, Doe VI, Liu Guifu, Ivy He, Charles Lee, Roe VII, Roe VIII. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rajika Shah, # 2 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 29 ) (Boyd, Kathryn) (Filed on 7/1/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
KATHRYN LEE BOYD, ESQ. (SBN 189496)
lboyd@srbr-law.com
RAJIKA L. SHAH, ESQ. (SBN 232994)
rshah@srbr-law.com
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 360
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Phone: (323) 302-9488
Fax: (323) 931-4990
11
TERRI MARSH, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
terri.marsh@hrlf.net
BRIAN PIERCE, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
bjpierce@gmail.com
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOUNDATION
1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202-369-4977
Fax: 202-355-6701
12
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
7
8
9
10
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
15
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG
16
18
DOE I, DOE II, Ivy HE, DOE III, DOE
IV, DOE V, DOE VI, ROE VII, Charles
LEE, ROE VIII, and LIU Guifu,
19
Plaintiffs,
17
20
vs.
21
22
23
24
25
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., John
CHAMBERS, Thomas LAM, Owen
CHAN, and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
Assigned to the Honorable Jeremy Fogel,
U.S.D.J.
PLAINTIFFS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER RE:
DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION CONSENTING TO
PLAINTIFFS PROCEEDING
ANONYMOUSLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND STATUS AND CONTINUING
HEARING DATE
Action filed: May 19, 2011
Hearing: July 29, 2011, 9:00am
Courtroom: 3, 5th Floor
26
27
28
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048
PLAINTIFFS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING A CHANGE OF HEARING DATE
Doe et al. v. Cisco et al. (Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG)
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
3
Upon consideration of Defendants’ administrative motion dated June 27, 2011,
4
consenting to Plaintiffs’ proceeding anonymously as Does and through Next Friend status
5
as requested in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Commence and Proceed as Pseudonymous Plaintiffs
6
and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Commence and Proceed Through Appointed Next Friend
7
(together, “Plaintiffs’ Motions”) through the time of decision and order on Defendants’
8
Motion to Dismiss, and requesting a change of hearing date for Plaintiffs’ Motions, as
9
well as Plaintiffs’ Response and Opposition filed on July 1, 2011, IT IS HEREBY
10
ORDERED THAT
11
Plaintiffs’ Motions are Granted through the pendency of, and until this Court’s
12
Decision and Order on, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, at which time this Court
13
will set a new date for hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motions.
14
15
OR
16
17
In conformity with the Court’s San Jose Division Standing Order Regarding Case
18
Management in Civil Cases, Plaintiffs’ Motions will be heard in this Court on July
19
29, 2011, as provided in Plaintiffs’ Amended Notices filed on June 21, 2011.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: ___________________
______________________________
Hon. Jeremy Fogel
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048
-1PLAINTIFFS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER
Doe et al. v. Cisco et al. (Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF-PSG)
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?