Mizera v. Google - Document No. 29
OBJECTIONS to re 28 Response in Support of Motion to Stay by Steve Mizera. (Kellner, Richard) (Filed on 3/16/2006) 5:2005cv02885 California Northern District Court
Content
Mizera v. Google
Doc. 29
Case 5:05-cv-02885-RMW
Document 29
Filed 03/16/2006
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
RICHARD L. KELLNER, SBN 171416 FRANK E. MARCHETTI, SBN 203185 KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 39th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3801 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 DARREN T. KAPLAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) GREGORY E. KELLER (To be admitted Pro Hac Vice) CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP 2300 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-3900 Facsimile: (404) 876-4476 SHAWN KHORRAMI, SBN 180411 LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN KHORRAMI 14550 Haynes Street, Third Floor Van Nuys, California 91411 Telephone: (818) 947-5111 Facsimile: (818) 947-5121 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION STEVE MIZERA, An Individual, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants. Date Comp. Filed: Trial Date: July 17, 2005 None Set OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PENDING SETTLEMENT Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Case No. 5:05 –cv-02885 RMW E-FILING
1
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF
CASE NO. C 05 02579 RMW
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 5:05-cv-02885-RMW
Document 29
Filed 03/16/2006
Page 2 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiffs Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. (“AIT”) and Steve Mizera (“Mizera”) hereby object to defendant Google, Inc.’s (“Google”) Reply in Support of the Motion to Stay dated March 16, 2006, on the following ground: Local Rule 7-11, upon which Google relies as the predicate for the filing of its “administrative” motion, does not permit the filing of a reply brief. Google’s reply brief in support of its “administrative” motion should therefore be stricken.
Dated: March 16, 2005
KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
By:
/s/ Richard L. Kellner RICHARD L. KELLNER Attorneys for Plaintiff
2
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF
CASE NO. C 05 02579 RMW
Doc. 29
Case 5:05-cv-02885-RMW
Document 29
Filed 03/16/2006
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
RICHARD L. KELLNER, SBN 171416 FRANK E. MARCHETTI, SBN 203185 KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 39th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3801 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 DARREN T. KAPLAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) GREGORY E. KELLER (To be admitted Pro Hac Vice) CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP 2300 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-3900 Facsimile: (404) 876-4476 SHAWN KHORRAMI, SBN 180411 LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN KHORRAMI 14550 Haynes Street, Third Floor Van Nuys, California 91411 Telephone: (818) 947-5111 Facsimile: (818) 947-5121 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION STEVE MIZERA, An Individual, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants. Date Comp. Filed: Trial Date: July 17, 2005 None Set OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PENDING SETTLEMENT Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Case No. 5:05 –cv-02885 RMW E-FILING
1
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF
CASE NO. C 05 02579 RMW
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 5:05-cv-02885-RMW
Document 29
Filed 03/16/2006
Page 2 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiffs Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. (“AIT”) and Steve Mizera (“Mizera”) hereby object to defendant Google, Inc.’s (“Google”) Reply in Support of the Motion to Stay dated March 16, 2006, on the following ground: Local Rule 7-11, upon which Google relies as the predicate for the filing of its “administrative” motion, does not permit the filing of a reply brief. Google’s reply brief in support of its “administrative” motion should therefore be stricken.
Dated: March 16, 2005
KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
By:
/s/ Richard L. Kellner RICHARD L. KELLNER Attorneys for Plaintiff
2
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF
CASE NO. C 05 02579 RMW
