Doe I et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
78
PARTIAL OPPOSITION (re 76 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Admin Relief filed by John Chambers, Owen Chan, Fredy Cheung, Cisco Systems, Inc., Thomas Lam. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sullivan, Kathleen) (Filed on 11/8/2011) Modified on 11/10/2011 (cv, COURT STAFF).
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Kathleen M. Sullivan (CA Bar No. 242261)
kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
2
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
3 Redwood City, California 94065
Telephone:
(650) 801-5000
Facsimile:
(650) 801-5100
4
5
Faith E. Gay (pro hac vice)
faithgay@quinnemanuel.com
Isaac Nesser (pro hac vice)
6
isaacnesser@quinnemanuel.com
7 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
(212) 849-7000
8 Telephone:
Facsimile:
(212) 849-7100
9
Attorneys for Defendants
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN JOSE DIVISION
14 Doe I et al.,
15
16
Plaintiffs,
v.
17 Cisco Systems, Inc. et al.,
18
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-EJD
DEFENDANTS’ [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 5:11-cv-2449-ejd
DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
Upon consideration of (a) Plaintiffs´ motion for administrative relief filed November 4,
3 2011, by which Plaintiffs seek to stay Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Corrected First
4 Amended Complaint (DE 67) (the "Motion to Dismiss") except for the portions of the Motion to
5 Dismiss that address the political question, act of state, and international comity doctrines; and (b)
6 Defendants’ brief in partial opposition to the administrative motion, filed November 8, 2011, by
7 which Defendants seek to stay the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, it is HEREBY ORDERED
8 AS FOLLOWS:
9
1.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is hereby stayed in its entirety until after the
10 Supreme Court of the United States finally decides Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (No. 1011 1491) and Mohamad v. Rajub (No. 11-88);
12
2.
The existing briefing schedule (DE 74) on the Motion to Dismiss is hereby vacated;
3.
The currently-scheduled February 17, 2012 hearing (DE 74) on the Motion to
13 and
14
15 Dismiss is hereby adjourned.
16
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19 DATED:
20
21
22
Hon. Edward J. Davila
United States District Court Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 5:11-cv-2449-EJD
DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
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?