Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 9

Reviews
Shared by: Tim Stanley
Stats
views:
46
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
4/9/2008
language:
pages:
0
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. Doc. 9 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 9 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 1 of 2 1 KEKER & V AN NEST, LLP JEFFREY R. CHANIN - #103649 2 DARLYN J. DUR - #169825 3 4 5 ASIM M. BHANSALI - #194925 KEVIN T. REED - #240799 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 NETFLIX, INC. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 11 NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA corporation, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 15 Case No. C 06 2361 WHA PROOF OF SERVICE Complaint filed: 14 BLOCKBUSTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, DOES I-50, April 4, 2006 16 17 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ?~ PROOF OF SERVICE 372095.01 NETFLIX V. BLOCKBUSTER, CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 9 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 3 4 5 I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California in the offce of a the bar ofthis court at whose direction the following service was made. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Keker & Van Nest, LLP, 710 Sansome Street, San Francisco, California 9411 1. member of On May 2,2006, I served the following document(s): 6 7 8 CLERK'S NOTICE SCHEDULING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON REASSIGNMENT 9 10 11 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO ORDER SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IN CIVIL CASES BEFORE JUDGE WILLIAM ALSUP ΓΈ 12 13 by regular UNITED STATES MAIL by placing a tre and correct copy in a sealed envelope addressed as shown below. I am readily familiar with the practice of Keker & Van Nest, LLP for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. According to that practice, items are deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, Californa on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am aware that, on motion of the part served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or the postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing stated in this affdavit. 14 Marshall B. Grossman, Esq. Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan LLP 15 1620 26th Street, 4th Floor, North Tower Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 16 17 18 Executed on May 2, 2006, at San Francisco, Californa. I declare under penalty of peijury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 19 20 21 DIA BLAIS MILLER 22 23 yf-l ~tlJJ ~ 24 25 26 27 28 1 372095.01 PROOF OF SERVICE NETFLIX V. BLOCKBUSTER, CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA

Shared by: Tim Stanley
Other docs by Tim Stanley
Related docs
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 80
Views: 25  |  Downloads: 0
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 70
Views: 61  |  Downloads: 1
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 50
Views: 48  |  Downloads: 1
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 78
Views: 62  |  Downloads: 0
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 204
Views: 21  |  Downloads: 0
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 154
Views: 36  |  Downloads: 1
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 160
Views: 21  |  Downloads: 0
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 111
Views: 52  |  Downloads: 1
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 117
Views: 42  |  Downloads: 1
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 68
Views: 46  |  Downloads: 1
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 75
Views: 69  |  Downloads: 0
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 156
Views: 23  |  Downloads: 0
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. - 112
Views: 48  |  Downloads: 1