Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 3, 2023

Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited

Judge
Richard Seeborg
Docket
3:22-cv-05229
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
6
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Corallo v. NSO Group, Judge Seeborg approved the parties’ request to move the case-management conference to October 19, 2023.

Who this affects

Francesco Corallo, NSO Group Technologies Limited, Q Cyber Technologies Limited, and Apple Inc.; the case-management conference was moved from August 24 to October 19, 2023.

What happened

In Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited, the parties asked the court to postpone an August 24, 2023, case-management conference. They explained that Apple’s and the NSO defendants’ motions to dismiss were still pending.

The court approved the request and continued the conference until October 19, 2023. This order did not decide either motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.

Judge Richard Seeborg issued the order on August 3, 2023.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited · No. 3:22-cv-05229
Judge
Richard Seeborg
Date
Aug. 3, 2023

Background

Francesco Corallo sued NSO Group Technologies Limited, Q Cyber Technologies Limited, and Apple Inc. Apple had filed a motion to dismiss, and the court had taken that motion under submission. The NSO defendants later filed their own motion to dismiss. Both motions remained pending when the parties submitted their joint request.

Requested Continuance

The parties asked the court to continue the case-management conference, which was then scheduled for August 24, 2023. They requested a new date of October 19, 2023, to give the court time to resolve the pending motions to dismiss.

Ruling

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court ordered that the case-management conference be continued until October 19, 2023. The order did not rule on either motion to dismiss and did not decide the merits of Corallo’s claims. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.