IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 26, 2008
JAMES P. DEFAZIO, PLAINTIFF,
HOLLISTER, INC.; ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.
KATHLEEN ELLIS, PLAINTIFF,
HOLLISTER INCORPORATED ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
BRENDA DIMARO AND HOLLIE LAVICK, PLAINTIFFS,
HOLLISTER INCORPORATED, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge William B. Shubb
Complaint Filed: March 22, 2005 Complaint Filed: August 25, 2005 Complaint Filed: July 15, 2004
[Consolidated Master Case Number]
ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION CONCERNING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
PROPOSED ORDER ON STIPULATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION CONCERNING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
The plaintiffs (other than plaintiff Kathleen Ellis) and defendants, The Firm of John Dickinson Schneider, Inc. ("JDS"), Hollister Incorporated ("Hollister"), Alan F. Herbert and Richard I. Fremgen have stipulated and jointly requested that the Court conduct a telephonic conference with counsel (a) to clarify what effect, if any, Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Procedure will have on defendants' presently pending Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims in the Fifth Amended Complaint; and (b) to address the appropriate course of further proceedings on defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss. The court, however, declines to hold such a hearing. Whatever effect Rule 12(c) may or may not have on defendant's pending motion is a question of law, which the court will have to determine after considering the respective positions of the parties as set forth in their pleadings and arguments.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.