Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 51

ORDER Continuing Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/04/2013. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

BE IN, INC., a New York Corporation,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15

GOOGLE INC., a California corporation;
RICHARD ROBINSON, an individual, and
Does 1 through 3 inclusive,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-03373-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

On June 28, 2012, Plaintiff Be In, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the above action,
ECF No. 1, which it then amended on August 16, 2012, ECF No. 12. On September 4, 2012,
Defendants Google Inc. and Richard Robinson (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Third and Fourth Causes of Action. ECF No. 15. The parties then stipulated to reschedule the
hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and to continue the initial Case Management
Conference. ECF No. 26.
Prior to the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and
Clifford Chance US LLP filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff, ECF No. 28, which
Defendants did not oppose, ECF No. 29. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP then entered an
appearance for Plaintiff on March 6, 2013. ECF No. 31. In light of obtaining new counsel, on

28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-03373-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

March 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed an unopposed administrative motion to adjourn the hearing on

2

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and to continue the initial Case Management Conference because

3

Plaintiff anticipated seeking to amend the complaint. See ECF No. 34. The Court granted

4

Plaintiff’s motion to continue the initial Case Management Conference, ordered Plaintiff to file a

5

second amended complaint by April 30, 2013, and denied as moot Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

6

and Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal filed in connection with Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to

7

Dismiss. See ECF No. 35. Pursuant to the Court’s March 26, 2013 Order, Plaintiff then filed a

8

Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint on April 30, 2013. ECF No. 37.

Foerster LLP as counsel of record in place of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. ECF No. 42.

For the Northern District of California

On May 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Counsel, substituting Morrison &

10
United States District Court

9

11

Defendants then filed a Conditional Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second

12

Amended Complaint to the extent Gibson Dunn – and not Plaintiff’s new counsel – signed the

13

Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 43. The parties then filed a stipulation in which they

14

agreed that: (1) Plaintiff would file a reply in support of its Motion for Leave to File a Second

15

Amended Complaint or to withdraw that motion by May 30, 2013; (2) if Plaintiff withdrew its

16

motion, Defendants would “use their best efforts” to inform Plaintiff’s counsel whether they would

17

stipulate to the filing of a revised second amended complaint by June 5, 2013; and (3) in the

18

absence of a stipulation, Plaintiff would have until June 14, 2013, to file a motion for leave to file

19

the revised second amended complaint. ECF No. 46. On May 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of

20

Withdrawal of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 50. Absent

21

stipulation by Defendants, Plaintiff now has until June 14, 2013, to file a motion for leave to file

22

the revised second amended complaint. ECF No. 47.

23

Accordingly, the Court hereby CONTINUES the Case Management Conference set for

24

June 5, 2013, to August 14, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: June 4, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

27
28
2

Case No.: 12-CV-03373-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE