Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gofron v. Picsel Technologies

July 26, 2010

CARRIE GOFRON, J. WILLIAM VANKE, ASHWINI KUMAR, MATTHEW MIXON, AND DULCE GONZALEZ, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
PICSEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., LESCIP T LIMITED (FORMERLY PICSEL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED), HAMSARD LIMITED, MASOOD JABBAR AND IMRAN KHAND, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

[Complaint Filed: August 31, 2009]

STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANT LESCIP T LIMITED'S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-1(a)

Trial Date: None Set

action;

pursuant to which they, inter alia, added defendant LESCIP T. LIMITED ("Lescip") to the action;

"Administration") on July 15, 2009, and John Bruce Cartwright and Graham Frost were appointed

WHEREAS on June 16, 2010, the Administrators were allegedly served with the

WHEREAS on August 31, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in this

WHEREAS on May 21, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint,

WHEREAS Lescip is a UK-based company that entered into administration (the Joint Administrators of Lescip (the "Administrators");

Lescip to plead, answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint would have been on or about July 7, 2010;

Administrators of Lescip to respond to the First Amended Complaint through August 3, 2010;

Judge Edward M. Chen so ordered on July 13, 2010;

First Amended Complaint and plead, answer or otherwise respond to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.