DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’
OPPOSITION
CASE NO. 05-03649
[41063-0023/BY061590.133]
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
DAVID T. BIDERMAN, Bar No. 101577
JUDITH B. GITTERMAN, Bar No. 115661
M. CHRISTOPHER JHANG, Bar No. 211463
PERKINS COIE LLP
180 Townsend Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107-1909
Telephone: (415) 344-7000
Facsimile: (415) 344-7050
Email: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com
Email: JGitterman@perkinscoie.com
Email: CJhang@perkinscoie.com
Attorneys for Defendant Google, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
CLRB HANSON INDUSTRIES, LLC d/b/a
INDUSTRIAL PRINTING, and HOWARD
STERN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant.
CASE NO. C O5-03649 JW
DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.'S
REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’
OPPOSITION
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
Date: June 26, 2006
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 8
Judge: Honorable James Ware
Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 56 Filed 06/12/2006 Page 1 of 6
CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc.
Doc. 56
Dockets.Justia.com
- 2 -
DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’
OPPOSITION
CASE NO. 05-03649
[41063-0023/BY061590.133]
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
I.
INTRODUCTION
In the Opposition, plaintiffs CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC, d/b/a Industrial Printing, and
Howard Stern (“plaintiffs”) claim that they have not alleged an express contract in their unjust
enrichment cause of action and that they are not required to allege in the alternative that their
contract is unenforceable. These contentions are without merit. Plaintiffs repeatedly allege the
existence of an “Agreement” with defendant Google, Inc. (“Google”) throughout their Second
Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and incorporate th