Flowbee International, Inc. et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 29

Unopposed MOTION for Oral Argument Relating to Its Pending Motion to Dismiss Hearing re: 26 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief to Its Pending Motion to Dismiss by Google, Inc., filed. Motion Docket Date 10/28/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Caruso, Margaret)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION FLOWBEE INTERNATIONAL, INC. and FLOWBEE HAIRCUTTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaint iffs, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. C-09-199 DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT RELATING TO ITS PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS: COMES NOW Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") and pursuant to Southern District of Texas Local Rule 7.5.A. files this Unopposed Motion for Oral Argument Relating to Its Pending Motion to Dismiss and would show as follows: Google respectfully suggests that oral argument would assist the Court in analyzing the arguments and evidence set forth in relation to Google's pending Motion to Dismiss. Oral argument would also permit the Court to question the parties and obtain clarification on any aspects of argument that may have been unclear. Pursuant to Southern District of Texas Local Rule 7.1.D., counsel for Google conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs Flowbee International, Inc. and Flowbee Haircutter Limited Partnership, who stated that Respondents Flowbee International, Inc. and Flowbee Haircutter Limited Partnership do not oppose the Motion. Defendant Google Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Oral Argument Relating to Its Pending Motion to Dismiss­ Page 1 Respect fully submitted, s/ Margret M. Caruso MARGRET M. CARUSO (admitted pro hac vice) ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE California State Bar No. 243473 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 Redwood Shores, California 94065 (650) 801-5101 (650) 801-5100 ­ Fax Email: margretcaruso@quinnemanuel.com CHARLES L. "CHIP" BABCOCK LEAD LOCAL COUNSEL Texas State Bar No. 01479500 Federal Bar No. 10982 JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 1401 McKinney, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77010-4008 (713) 752-4210 (713) 308-4110 - Fax Email: cbabcock@jw.com CARL C. BUTZER CO-LOCAL COUNSEL Texas State Bar No. 03545900 Federal Bar No. 16376 JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 6000 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 953-5902 (214) 661-6609 - Fax Email: cbutzer@jw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC. Defendant Google Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Oral Argument Relating to Its Pending Motion to Dismiss­ Page 2 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that on October 8, 2009, counsel for Movant Google Inc. conferred with counsel for Respondents Flowbee International, Inc. and Flowbee Haircutter Limited Partnership about the Motion. Respondents Flowbee International, Inc. and Flowbee Haircutter Limited Partnership were unopposed. _s/ Margret M. Caruso________________ Margret M. Caruso Defendant Google Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Oral Argument Relating to Its Pending Motion to Dismiss­ Page 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 8, 2009, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of the court for the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, using the electronic case files system of the court. The electronic case files system sent a "Notice of Electronic Filing" to individuals who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means. All other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by first class mail today, October 8, 2009. _s/ Margret M. Caruso________________ Margret M. Caruso Defendant Google Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Oral Argument Relating to Its Pending Motion to Dismiss­ Page 4

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?