Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00247/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00247-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C07-00247

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CHANGE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 10/23/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVANZIA, S.L., a Spanish corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

LASERSCOPE, INC., a California corporation, and

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a

Minnesota corporation,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-00247 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 1

CHANGE HEARING DATE ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

[re: docket nos. 58, 61]

LASERSCOPE, INC., a California corporation, and

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a

Minnesota corporation,

 Cross-Complainants,

 

 v.

DAVANZIA, S.L., a Spanish corporation,

 Cross-Defendant.

 

Defendant, Laserscope, Inc. (“Laserscope”) moves to change the hearing date on

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer to Second Amended Complaint. The hearing date on the

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 64 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Case No. C C07-00247

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CHANGE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

motion to strike already has been continued from October 16 to November 9. Laserscope now

seeks to continue the hearing for an additional three weeks to accommodate counsel’s vacation

schedule. Having reviewed and fully considered the matter, and in light of the numerous matters

that have been and will be litigated by the parties, the Court concludes that a further continuance

is unwarranted and would cause undue delay in the discovery process. Counsel may appear by

telephone, or the Court may consider the motion to strike without oral argument.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

continuance is DENIED.

DATED: October 23, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 64 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case No. C C07-00247

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CHANGE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

William J. Frimel bill.frimel@dlapiper.com

Margaret A. Crawford maggie.crawford@dlapiper.com

Vernon H. Granneman vernon.granneman@pillsburylaw.com

Dianne L. Sweeney dianne.sweeney@pillsburylaw.com

Gary Hansen ghansen@oppenseimer.com

Heather N. Hoecke hhoecke@oppenheimer.com

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 64 Filed 10/23/07 Page 3 of 3