Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTAGIO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3592 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO VACATE HEARING DATE

TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is defendant’s administrative request to vacate the upcoming

hearing on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, currently set for October 31, 2007. 

Defendant seeks to vacate the hearing in view of its recent Ninth Circuit appeal of this

court’s September 21, 2007 order granting plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s

counterclaims. Defendant also asserts that the October 31 hearing should be vacated,

because plaintiff did not obtain leave of court prior to filing its motion for summary

judgment, and because plaintiff’s notice of motion for summary judgment cites to a statute

which does not actually exist.

Defendant’s motion is hereby DENIED. First, the court’s order granting plaintiff’s

motion to strike defendant’s counterclaims is not an appealable order, as it is interlocutory

in nature and does not constitute final resolution or judgment in this action. As such,

defendant’s pending appeal is improper, and the court’s jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s

dispositive motion remains intact. Second, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has

been properly filed, as the court’s pretrial schedule specifically ordered the parties to file

dispositive motions by September 26, with summary judgment hearings to be held on

October 31, 2007. Last, although plaintiff’s notice of motion does include an incorrect

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 169 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

citation, as defendant points out, this does not alter the fact that plaintiff’s motion is properly

authorized under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court’s local rules, and the court’s

own pretrial schedule. 

 Defendant’s reply brief filed in support of its administrative motion is also STRICKEN

for failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-11 (b, c)(authorizing the filing of an opposition

brief only). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 169 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 2