Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al
Filing
27
ORDER Continuing Hearing on Motion to Dismiss by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 26 Stipulation (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
United States District Court
9
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
13
BE IN, INC., a New York Corporation,
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18
v.
GOOGLE INC., a California corporation;
RICHARD ROBINSON, an individual, and
Does 1 through 3 inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:12-cv-3373-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
19
20
On December 13, 2012, the parties in this action filed a stipulation and proposed order
21
seeking to reschedule the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Be In, Inc.’s Third and Fourth
22
Causes of Action scheduled for January 3, 2013, and to continue the initial case management
23
conference scheduled for the same day. ECF No. 26. The Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulation
24
to reschedule the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and to continue the initial case
25
management conference. However, the Court is not available to hear this motion on February 28,
26
2013. Accordingly, the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Be In, Inc.’s Third and Fourth
27
28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-03163-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
1
Causes of Action and the initial case management conference are CONTINUED to April 18, 2013,
2
at 1:30 p.m.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated: December 17, 2012
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-03163-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
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?