From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Acosta

United States District Court, N.D. California, (San Francisco)
Feb 27, 2009
Case No. CV 08-2437 JSW (BZ) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. CV 08-2437 JSW (BZ).

February 27, 2009

J. Andrew Coombs (SBN 123881), Annie S. Wang (SBN 243027), J. Andrew Coombs, A P. C., Glendale, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff, Adobe Systems Incorporated.


[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT


On or about January 20, 2009, the Court set the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment on March 18, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.

In light of the request for a telephonic appearance and good cause being shown, Plaintiff's request is granted.

Plaintiff shall be available by telephone for the hearing on its Motion for Default Judgment on March 18, 2009, for ___ hours beginning at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

If defendant appears plaintiff will not be permitted to cross examine by telephone. Counsel shall contact CourtCall, telephonic court appearances at 1-888-882-6878, and make arrangements for the telephonic conference call.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years, employed in the County of Los Angeles, and not a party to the above-entitled cause. I am employed by a member of the Bar of the United States District Court of California. My business address is 517 East Wilson Boulevard, Suite 202, Glendale, California 91206.

On February 26, 2009 I served on the interested parties in this action with the:

• REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE BY PLAINTIFF FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
• [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

for the following civil action:

Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Max Acosta, et al.

by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope. I am readily familiar with the office's practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Glendale, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

Max Acosta

843 N. La Fayette Park Pl.

Los Angeles, CA 90026

Place of Mailing: Glendale, California

Executed on February 26, 2009, at Glendale, California.


Summaries of

Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Acosta

United States District Court, N.D. California, (San Francisco)
Feb 27, 2009
Case No. CV 08-2437 JSW (BZ) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2009)
Case details for

Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Acosta

Case Details

Full title:Adobe Systems Incorporated, Plaintiff, v. Max Acosta and Does 1 — 10…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, (San Francisco)

Date published: Feb 27, 2009

Citations

Case No. CV 08-2437 JSW (BZ) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2009)