Doe I et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 77

Proposed Order re 76 MOTION to Reschedule Briefing Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-11 by Doe I, Doe II, Doe III, Doe IV, Doe V, Doe VI, Liu Guifu, Ivy He, Charles Lee, Roe VII, Roe VIII. (Boyd, Kathryn) (Filed on 11/8/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

KATHRYN LEE CRAWFORD-BOYD, ESQ. (SBN 189496)
[e-mail]
RAJIKA L. SHAH, ESQ. (SBN 232994)
[e-mail]
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 360
Los Angeles, California 90048
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
TERRI MARSH, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
BRIAN PIERCE, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOUNDATION
1615 L Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

12

JUDITH BROWN CHOMSKY (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
LAW OFFICES OF JUDITH BROWN CHOMSKY
8210 New Second Street
Elkins Park, PA 19027
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]

13

Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS

10
11

14
15
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
DOE I, DOE II, Ivy HE, DOE III, DOE
IV, DOE V, DOE VI, ROE VII, Charles
LEE, ROE VIII, and LIU Guifu, and
those individual similarly situated,

18
19
20

Plaintiffs,

23

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
RESCHEDULE BRIEFING
[N.D.Cal. Local Rule 7-11]
Action Filed: May 19, 2011
FAC Filed: Sept. 2, 2011

vs.

21
22

Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-EJD-PSGx
Assigned to the Hon. Edward J. Davila

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., John
CHAMBERS, Thomas LAM, Owen
CHAN, Fredy CHEUNG, and DOES 1100,

24
25

Defendants.

26
27
28
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RESCHEDULE BRIEFING
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-EJD-PSGx

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Upon the Motion to Reschedule Briefing submitted by Plaintiffs DOE I, DOE II,

2
3

Ivy HE, DOE III, DOE IV, DOE V, DOE VI, ROE VII, Charles LEE, ROE VIII, and LIU

4

Guifu (“Plaintiffs”), the Court, having considered the papers submitted, HEREBY

5

ORDERS THAT:
1.

6

Briefing on only the following three questions raised by the Motion to

7

Dismiss filed by Defendants CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. (“Cisco”), John CHAMBERS

8

(“Chambers”), Thomas LAM (“Lam”), Owen CHAN (“Chan”), and Fredy CHEUNG

9

(“Cheung”) (“Defendants”) on September 23, 2011 (Docket Entry 67) (“Motion to

10

Dismiss”) will continue on the current briefing schedule established in the Court’s Order

11

dated October 11, 2011 (Docket Entry 74):1 (1) whether the case presents a non-justiciable

12

political question, (2) whether the complaint challenges an act of state, and (3) whether

13

the case violates principles of international comity.
2.

14

Briefing on all other issues raised by Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is

15

rescheduled until after the U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision in Kiobel v. Royal

16

Dutch Petroleum Co. and Mohamad v. Rajub, Nos. 10-1491 and 11-88, --- S.Ct. ----, 79

17

USLW 3728 (2011), cert. granted October 17, 2011.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: __________________

23

_____________
Hon. Edward J. Davila
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
1

28
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss is due November 18, 2011, while Defendants’
Reply is due January 16, 2012, with hearing scheduled for February 17, 2012.
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RESCHEDULE BRIEFING
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-EJD-PSGx