Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Google Inc., A Delaware Corporation v. Omar Jackman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


March 10, 2011

GOOGLE INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
OMAR JACKMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL;
JOHN DOE "SIMON," AN INDIVIDUAL; GREGORY GAVIN, AN INDIVIDUAL;
AMANDA ODELL, AN INDIVIDUAL;
JOEY PATRON, AN INDIVIDUAL;
GINA WYANT, AN INDIVIDUAL; DOES 6-50, INDIVIDUALS, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Court

ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTING DEADLINES

On December 17, 2011, the Court, upon Plaintiff Google Inc.'s motion, continued the initial Case Management Conference in this action to March 16, 2011. Plaintiff now seeks a second 21 continuance on grounds that the Clerk has entered default against Defendants Gavin, Odell, and Jackman. Plaintiff represents that it will file motions for entry of default judgment and 24 documentation of the settlement with Defendant Jackman in the coming days. Based on this 25 information, the Court agrees that a continuance of the Case Management Conference is 26 appropriate. Accordingly, the Case Management Conference set for March 16, 2011 is hereby CONTINUED to May 18, 2011 at 2 p.m. Plaintiff shall file motions for default judgment against Wyant, and Plaintiff has reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims against Defendant

Defendants Gavin, Odell, and Wyant, and a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Defendant Jackman, 2 no later than March 31, 2011.

The Court notes, in addition, that the remaining Defendants Simon and Patron do not appear to have been served. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that "[i]f a defendant is 5 not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court . . . must dismiss the action 6 without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time."

The 120-day period to serve these Defendants has expired. Accordingly, if Plaintiff wishes to 8 pursue this action against them, it must file a request for an extension of the time for service.

Alternatively, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss these Defendants without prejudice. If Plaintiff 10 takes no action regarding these Defendants within 30 days of this Order, the Court will dismiss them without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110310

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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