UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
February 22, 2011
CHAIM KOWALSKY, ON BEHALF OF CASE
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
On December 13, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Hewlett- Packard Company's motion to dismiss. Defendant subsequently moved for leave to seek 19 reconsideration of the portion of the Court's order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Defendant seeks reconsideration on the basis of pre-existing and new authority that was not 22 previously brought to the Court's attention, and on grounds that the parties did not have an 23 opportunity to fully brief the issues raised in those authorities at the time of the Court's prior order.
The Court agrees that the parties did not have a full opportunity to brief these issues or bring these 25 authorities to the Court's attention, and that the intervening authority cited by Defendant may 26 affect the Court's prior ruling. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant leave to seek 27 reconsideration.
Defendant shall file its proposed motion for reconsideration no later than February 24, 2011. Briefing and hearing on the motion will proceed as follows:
(1) Plaintiff shall file an opposition brief, not to exceed 12 pages, by March 10, 2011.
(2) Defendant shall file a reply, not to exceed 8 pages, by March 17, 2011.
(3) The motion will be heard on April 14, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. If the motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument, the Court will inform the parties and vacate the hearing.
In light of the pending motion for reconsideration, the Case Management Conference currently set 8 for March 23, 2011, is hereby rescheduled to April 14, 2011, to follow the motion hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.