Vedanti Systems Limited v. Max Sound Corporation, 16-cv-02179-PSG. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160531d59
Visitors: 12
Filed: May 27, 2016
Latest Update: May 27, 2016
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Re: Docket No. 8) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is a motion by Plaintiff Vedanti Systems Limited for a preliminary injunction against Defendant Max Sound Corporation. 1 Max Sound has not opposed the motion; nor has it appeared in this action at all. 2 However, because Max Sound has been served with the complaint, 3 and because the motion seeks injunctive relief, the court may not grant it until Max Sound
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Re: Docket No. 8) PAUL S. GREWAL , Magistrate Judge . Before the court is a motion by Plaintiff Vedanti Systems Limited for a preliminary injunction against Defendant Max Sound Corporation. 1 Max Sound has not opposed the motion; nor has it appeared in this action at all. 2 However, because Max Sound has been served with the complaint, 3 and because the motion seeks injunctive relief, the court may not grant it until Max Sound ..
More
ORDER VACATING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Re: Docket No. 8)
PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is a motion by Plaintiff Vedanti Systems Limited for a preliminary injunction against Defendant Max Sound Corporation.1 Max Sound has not opposed the motion; nor has it appeared in this action at all.2 However, because Max Sound has been served with the complaint,3 and because the motion seeks injunctive relief, the court may not grant it until Max Sound consents to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge.4 The court therefore vacates the hearing on the instant motion, currently set for Tuesday, May 31, 2016. The case will be reassigned to a district judge upon the resignation of the undersigned on June 3, 2016.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See Docket No. 8.
2. Max Sound's only activity has been a letter from a corporate officer, dated May 2, 2016, requesting an extension of the briefing schedule because the company "is currently in the process of retaining counsel to represent itself in this case, but has not yet done so." Docket No. 20. Max Sound must appear "through a member of the bar of this Court" under Civ. L.R. 3-9(b). Moreover, Max Sound has offered no explanation for its delay. The request is DENIED.
3. See Docket Nos. 1, 19.
4. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (c)(1); Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005); Brown v. Baca, Case No. 13-cv-00745, 2013 WL 502252, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2013).
Source: Leagle
