From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PeopleBrowsr, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Mar 21, 2013
Case No. 3:12-cv-06120-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 3:12-cv-06120-EMC

03-21-2013

PeopleBrowsr, Inc., and PeopleBrowsr Pty, Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. Twitter, Inc., Defendant.

DURIE TANGRI LLP MICHAEL H. PAGE JOSHUA H. LERNER Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, Inc. CROWELL & MORING LLP MICHAEL KAHN GREGORY D. CALL BEATRICE B. NGUYEN Attorneys for Plaintiffs PeopleBrowsr, Inc. and PeopleBrowsr Pty, Ltd.


DURIE TANGRI LLP
MICHAEL H. PAGE (SBN 154913)
mpage@durietangri.com
JOSHUA H. LERNER (SBN 220755)
jlerner@durietangri.com
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-362-6666
Facsimile: 415-236-6300
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC.
SCOTT A. SHER (SBN 190053)
ssher@wsgr.com
1700 K St., NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: 202-973-8822
Facsimile: 202-973-8899
Attorneys for Defendant
Twitter, Inc.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

EXTENDING TIME


Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen

WHEREAS, on March 6, 2013, the Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Docket No. 28) (the "Order"), which, among other things, granted Plaintiffs PeopleBrowsr, Inc. and PeopleBrowsr Pty, Ltd.'s (collectively, "PeopleBrowsr") request for Defendant Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter") to pay PeopleBrowsr's reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred as a result of Twitter's removal of the above-captioned case;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Order, PeopleBrowsr's brief detailing its costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees (the "Fees Brief"), is due on March 20, 2013, and the parties have agreed to attempt to resolve this issue without the Court's intervention;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that:

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, PeopleBrowsr's time to file and serve its Fees Brief be extended from March 20, 2013, until not later than April 19, 2013, and Defendants' responsive pleading shall remain due 14 days after the filing of the Fees Brief.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DURIE TANGRI LLP

By: ___________

MICHAEL H. PAGE

JOSHUA H. LERNER

Attorneys for Defendant

Twitter, Inc.

CROWELL & MORING LLP

By: ___________

MICHAEL KAHN

GREGORY D. CALL

BEATRICE B. NGUYEN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PeopleBrowsr, Inc. and

PeopleBrowsr Pty, Ltd.

FILER'S ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, regarding signatures, I, Michael H. Page, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained.

___________

MICHAEL H. PAGE

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________

HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that all counsel of record is being served on March 20, 2013 with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system.

___________

MICHAEL H. PAGE


Summaries of

PeopleBrowsr, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Mar 21, 2013
Case No. 3:12-cv-06120-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013)
Case details for

PeopleBrowsr, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PeopleBrowsr, Inc., and PeopleBrowsr Pty, Ltd., Plaintiffs, v. Twitter…

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

Date published: Mar 21, 2013

Citations

Case No. 3:12-cv-06120-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013)