Limitnone LLC v. Google Inc.

Filing 49

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Blanche M. Manning: On September 22, 2008, this court entered an order transferring this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.4, the clerk may not transfer this case prior to October 6, 2008. On September 26, 2008, Limitnone filed a motion seeking to stay the September 22d transfer order. In its motion, Limitnone asserts that it intends to file a petition for a writ of mandamus and argues that a stay is necessary to give the Seventh Circuit an opportunity to consider the merits of its promised petition before the case is transferred. Limitnone noticed its motion to stay for October 1, 2008, and Google's out-of-town counsel contacted the court's clerk today to determine if an appearance is necessary tomorrow. It appears that Limitnone has not yet filed the promised petition for a writ of mandamus with the appellate court, despite the fact that this court issued its transfer order nine days ago on September 22d. Accordingly, Limitnone's motion to stay 46 is denied without prejudice.Mailed notice (rth, )

Limitnone LLC v. Google Inc.

Doc. 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.2.2 Eastern Division Limitnone LLC Plaintiff, v. Google Inc. Defendant. Case No.: 1:08-cv-04178 Honorable Blanche M. Manning

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, October 1, 2008: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Blanche M. Manning: On September 22, 2008, this court entered an order transferring this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.4, the clerk may not transfer this case prior to October 6, 2008. On September 26, 2008, Limitnone filed a motion seeking to stay the September 22d transfer order. In its motion, Limitnone asserts that it intends to file a petition for a writ of mandamus and argues that a stay is necessary to give the Seventh Circuit an opportunity to consider the merits of its promised petition before the case is transferred. Limitnone noticed its motion to stay for October 1, 2008, and Google's out-of-town counsel contacted the court's clerk today to determine if an appearance is necessary tomorrow. It appears that Limitnone has not yet filed the promised petition for a writ of mandamus with the appellate court, despite the fact that this court issued its transfer order nine days ago on September 22d. Accordingly, Limitnone's motion to stay [46] is denied without prejudice.Mailed notice(rth, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information. For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Dockets.Justia.com