From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Pittsburgh Wholesale Grocers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Mar 6, 2013
Case No. 12-CV-5523-WHA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 12-CV-5523-WHA

03-06-2013

INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC et al. Plaintiffs. v. PITTSBURGH WHOLESALE GROCERS d/b/a PITCO FOODS et al., Defendants RELATED ACTIONS

William A. Markham, State Bar No. 132970 Dorn Graham Bishop, State Bar No. 147994 Jason Eliaser, State Bar No. 248394 LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Dandee Company, Inc.


William A. Markham, State Bar No. 132970
Dorn Graham Bishop, State Bar No. 147994
Jason Eliaser, State Bar No. 248394
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant Dandee Company, Inc.

PROPOSED ORDER AUTHORIZING

PLAINTIFFS TO WITHDRAW THEIR

MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSES MADE BY DEFENDANTS

DANDEE COMPANY, INC., KEVIN

ATTIQ AND FADI ATTIQ, AND

GRANTING LEAVE TO THESE

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AMENDED

ANSWERS


The Hon. William Alsup


Complaint Filed: October 26, 2012

WHEREAS, Defendants Dandee Company, Inc., Kevin Attiq, and Fadi Attiq (collectively, the Dandee Defendants") each answered Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint on January 23, 2013 (Docket Nos. 159 and 161); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs moved to strike certain of the affirmative defenses set forth in these answers on February 19, 2013 (Docket No. 191); and

WHEREAS, the hearing of this motion is set for March 28, 2013, and the Dandee Defendants' opposition papers are due on March 5, 2013; and

WHEREAS, the Dandee Defendants prefer to amend their respective answers rather than oppose Plaintiffs' motion to strike; and

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and the Dandee Defendants have stipulated to the below matters and have asked this Court to enter them as an Order of this Court; and

WHEREFORE, the Court now makes the following ORDER.

1. Plaintiffs are deemed to have withdrawn their above Motion to Strike (Docket No. 191).

2. Each Dandee Defendant is given leave to file an amended answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and each of them must do so no later than March 8, 2013.

3. The Court now takes off calendar the hearing of Plaintiffs' above Motion to Strike, which was set for March 28, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________

The Hon. William H. Alsup

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


Summaries of

Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Pittsburgh Wholesale Grocers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Mar 6, 2013
Case No. 12-CV-5523-WHA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013)
Case details for

Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Pittsburgh Wholesale Grocers

Case Details

Full title:INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC et al. Plaintiffs. v. PITTSBURGH WHOLESALE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Mar 6, 2013

Citations

Case No. 12-CV-5523-WHA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013)