Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01855/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01855-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 05cv1855

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Perlan Therapeutics, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv1855 BEN (BLM)

ORDER RE:

Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No.

76); Motion for Extension of Time

(Dkt. No. 77); Plaintiff’s Ex Parte

Application (Dkt. No. 97); and

Defendants’ Ex Parte Application

(Dkt. No. 96) 

vs.

NexBio, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed September 1, 2006 (Dkt. No. 76) is Denied. This

court lacks jurisdiction in view of Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal filed September 5, 2006. Scott v.

Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice

of Appeal filed September 1, 2006 (Dkt. No. 77) is Denied as moot.

Plaintiff’s Ex parte Application for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Defendants’ Reply Brief in

Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. No. 97) is Denied. Defendants did not raise new issues

in their Reply brief. 

Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion to Strike Perlan’s Ex Parte Application to File a Sur-Reply to

Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. No. 96) is Denied as moot.

DATED: October 3, 2006

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01855-BEN-BLM Document 100 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 1