Holman et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 30

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by AT&T Mobility, LLC. (Sasse, Daniel) (Filed on 11/16/2007) Modified text on 11/28/2007 (cv, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Holman et al v. Apple, Inc. et al Doc. 30 Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 Daniel A. Sasse, Esq. (CA Bar No. 236234) David E. Crowe, Esq. (CA Bar No. 224895) CROWELL & MORING LLP 3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor . Irne, CA 92614-8505 Telephone: (949) 263-8400 Facsimile: (949) 263-8414 4 5 Email: dsasse~crowell.com dcrowe~crowell.com Wm. Randolph Smith, Esq. (pro hac vice) Jeffrey H. Howard, Esq. (pro hac vice) Chrstopher E. Ondeck, Esq. (pro hac vice) 6 7 8 CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 624-2500 Facsimile: (202) 628-5116 9 10 Email: wrsmith~crowell.com ~ .~ bn o go 11 ihoward~crowell.com condeck~crowell.com Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ~ .. II 12 ...-4 0 S NIOCO . .. 0:2N-4 ' .c . 0 13 14 15 ~ :ciN ~ ":'-0\ c en" Q) ....a-4 ~ llO\ ~ .. .. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVSION ~ 0 ~.~ ~ 16 17 18 U PAUL HOLMA and LUCY RIVELLO, and on behalf of all others individually similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ) Case No. 07-CV-05152-JW ) ) ) DEFENDANTS' 19 MOTION TO ) ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR 20 21 ) OTHERWISE RESPOND TO ) PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT ) APPLE, INC., AT&T MOBILITY LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. 22 23 Defendants ) ) Date: Not Scheduled ) Time Not Scheduled ) Judge: Honorable James Ware ) 24 25 ) ) 26 27 28 Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, Defendants Apple Inc. ("Apple") and AT&T Mobility LLC ("A TTM") (collectively "Defendants") hereby move the Court for an Order enlarging the time within which Defendants may Answer, or otherwise respond, to Plaintiffs Complaint. 1 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAITIFFS' COMPLAIT CASE NO. 07-CY-05152-JW Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 9 1 Defendants also move the Cour for an order to change the briefing schedule previously agreed to by the parties, pursuant to a stipulation filed with this Court on October 31, 2007. Defendants seek the Order enlarging time and corresponding change to the briefing schedule so that the 2 3 4 5 briefing and hearng schedule for this action conforms with the briefing and hearing schedule in a related action. Such a change wil promote judicial economy, including by permitting the Court to address motions to dismiss concerning the same allegations at the same hearing. 6 7 8 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action (Holman, et al. v. Apple Inc., AT&T Mobilty 9 10 LLC, et al. - "Holman") on October 5, 2007. Also on October 5, 2007, an action was filed in state court against Apple; an amended complaint was fied on November 2, 2007 and the action was removed on November 7,2007. Timothy P. Smith, et al. v. Apple Inc., AT&T Mobilty LLC, ~ .~ bn 11 12 13 ~ .. II et al., Case No. 07-CY-05662-RM ("Smith"). Smith and Holman are both actions brought against Apple and ATIM which allege that Apple and A TIM entered into what plaintiffs call an unlawful agreement under which A TTM ~ ~O\ ~ ~ ":'-0\ ~ ",ciN 0) ~g~ S N\CCO .. :2~ ~ Ni o go .c ' 0 14 15 wil be the exclusive provider of phone and data services for the iPhone in the United States and ~ 0 ~.~ ~ .. .. 16 17 18 Apple wil allegedly receive a portion of ATIM's profits. Holman Complaint irir 38,41; Smith First Amended Complaint ("FAC")"irir 28(1)-(3). The complaints further allege that through the U use of a software lock and a software update, Apple has prohibited iPhone owners from unlocking their phones for use with cellular telephone service providers other than A TIM. Holman Complaint irir 34,51-55; Smith FAC irir 28(4),40-42. 19 20 21 Based on these allegations, both the Smith and Holman complaints assert claims against Apple and A TTM for unlawful tying and attempted monopolization under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrst Act, 15 U.S.C. 1-2. Holman Complaint irir 90-97; Smith FAC irir 128- 22 23 24 25 35. The Smith and Holman complaints both also plead claims based on alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law in addition to alleged violations of the California 26 27 28 Cartwright Act's prohibitions on unlawful tying and unlawful trusts. Holman Complaint irir 76- 89; Smith FAC irir 117-27, 196-207. While Smith and Holman each assert additional causes of action against Apple and A TTM, all such claims relate to the same set of alleged practices of the 2 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAITIFFS' COMPLAIT CASE NO. 07-CY-05152-JW Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 9 1 defendants described above. Thus, Smith's separate causes of action for common law monopolization, Smith FAC irir 183-89, breach of 2 3 waranties, id. irir 136-57, and alleged violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, id. irir 158-65, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, 4 5 id. irir 166-71, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrpt Organizations Act, id. irir 190-95, and California Penal Code 502, id. irir 172-82, are all based on the same alleged agreements and 6 practices of ATIM and Apple. The same is true for Holman's additional cause of action for "computer trespass/trespass to chattels." Holman Complaint irir 98-102. 7 8 Furhermore, both Holman and Smith are purported class actions that seek to represent the interests of the same class of people. Holman's proposed class is composed of 9 "all 10 individuals or entities who at any time from June 29, 2007 to the date of judgment in this action, ~ .~ bn 11 bought and implemented the iPhone and sustained damages as a result." Holmn Complaint ir 63. Smith's purported class is made up of 12 13 ~ .. II "(a)ll persons or entities who... purchased or own an ~ :ciN ~ ":'-0\ S NIOCO .. .. 0:2 -4 14 N' ~ nO\ ~ o go .c-40 .. ' 0 iPhone, intended for use by themselves, their families, or their members, participants, or employees... durng the period from June 29,2007 through such time in the future as the effects 0) ~g~ .. .. ~ ~.~ 15 16 of Apple's ilegal conduct, as alleged herein, have ceased. .. (and who) purchased audio or video files from the iTunes Music Store durng the Class Period." Smith FAC irir 93(a)-(b); see also id. 0 ~ U 17 18 irir 94(a)-(b). The two potential classes are thus nearly identicaL. On November 9, 2007, Apple filed an Administrative Motion requesting that the Cour 19 determine that the Holman and Smith actions are related. See Defendant Apple Inc.'s Administrative Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related ("Motion for Related Cases"). 20 21 22 23 On November 9, 2007, Defendants and the plaintiffs in the Smith action stipulated that Defendants would answer, or otherwise respond, to the Smith Complaint by or on December 21, 2007.1 See.8asse Decl. ir 5, Exh. D. Given the obvious economies of 24 25 having the paries and the 26 27 28 1 It was fuher stipulated that "if Apple and/or ATTM respond to the Complaint through a motion, the parties agree that plaintiffs' opposition to the motion shall be filed on Januar 31, 2008, that defendants' replybrief(s) shall be filed on February 11, 2008, and that any such motions shall be set for hearing on February 25,2008 or another date thereafter that the Court is available." Sasse Decl. ir 5 Exh. D. 3 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAITIFFS' COMPLAIT CASE NO. 07-CY-05152-JW Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 4 of 9 1 Court consider any motions to dismiss or other motions in what the defendants believe to be related cases on the same schedule, counsel for A TTM sought the stipulation by counsel for 2 3 plaintiffs in Holman to adjust the response date and briefing schedule to match the schedule set 4 5 in Smith. Plaintiffs' counsel declined. See Sasse Decl. ir 6. Accordingly, in order to preserve resources and promote judicial economy, Defendants now request that the Court enlarge the time for Defendants to answer, or otherwise respond, to Plaintiffs Complaint and adjust the briefing schedule for any motions to match the briefing schedule in Smith. 6 7 8 II. GROUNDS FOR GRATING THE MOTION As discussed above, and more thoroughy in Defendant Apple's Motion for Related Cases, Smith and Holman are related cases. The cases involve the same defendants, and both challenge an agreement between Apple and ATTM concerning the iPhone, alleging that the 9 10 ~ .~ bn .. -4 0 .c ' 0 11 12 13 ~ .. II o go 14 15 16 17 18 agreement violates the antitrust and unfair competition laws. In addition, both Holman and Smith challenge various business conduct related to the iPhone and softare updates to the ~ ~.. 0\ ~ ~ ",ciN ~ ":'-0\ c 0\ Q) ....a-4 S N\QCO .. .. o:2 -4 Ni iPhone. Accordingly Defendants respectfully submit that having both cases on the same schedule would save both Cour and pary resources, and would otherwise promote judicial ~ 0 ~.~ ~ .. .. economy. U Plaintiffs in this action wil hot agree to stipulate to further enlarge the time to answer, or otherwise respond, to the Complaint so that the briefing schedule matches the schedule in Smith. 19 See Sasse Decl. ir 6. Defendant ATTM's counsel has corresponded with Plaintiffs' counsel and has sent a draft of this motion to Plaintiffs counsel requesting that Plaintiff agree to stipulate to 20 21 the proposed enlargement of time to answer, or otherwise respond, to the Complaint. See Sasse DecL. ir 6. Plaintiffs' counsel has declined to so stipulate. 22 23 As discussed above, the briefing schedule has been modified previously by stipulation between the paries on October 31, 2007. Modifying the briefing schedule to conform to the 24 25 Smith briefing schedule should have very little effect on the overall schedule of the case. The dates for the briefing schedule would be changed as follows: 26 27 28 4 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAITIFFS' COMPLAIT CASE NO. 07-CY-05152-JW Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 Brief Answer/Response Opposition Reply Hearing Date From December 7, 2007 Januar 10, 2008 Januar 21, 2008 Februar 4, 2008 To December 21, 2007 January 31, 2008 Februar 11,2007 February 25,2007 4 5 III. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, good cause exists for the Court to grant Defendants Motion To Enlarge Time To Answer Or Otherwise Respond To Plaintiffs' Complaint and order an alternative briefing schedule. 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: November 16, 2007 CROWELL & MORIG LLP ~ .~ bn 11 12 13 ~ .. II ~ ~O\ ~ ~ ":'-0\ ~ ",ciN S NIOCO .. .. 0:2 -4 N' c 0\ Q) ....a-4 o go .c-40 .. ' 0 By: /s/ Daniel A. Sasse Daniel A. Sasse, Esq. Crowell & Moring LLP 3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor Irne, CA 92614 14 15 16 Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ~ 0 ~.~ ~ .. .. U LATHA & WATKIS LLP 17 18 By: 19 20 21 Chrstopher S. Yates, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Apple Inc. 22 23 24 25 ,. 26 27 28 5 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAITIFFS' COMPLAIT CASE NO. 07-CY-05152-JW Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 Brief Answer/Response Opposition Reply Hearing Date From December 7, 2007 January i 0, 2008 To December 21, 2007 Januar 31, 2008 January 2 i, 2008 February 4, 2008 February 11,2007 February 25, 2007 4 III. CONCLUSION 5 For all the foregoing reasons, good cause exists for the Court to grant Defendants Motion 6 To Enlarge Time To Answer Or Otherwise Respond To Plaintiffs' Complaint and order an 7 alternative briefing schedule. 8 9 IODated: November 16, 2007 11 CROWELL & MORING LLP 12 13 By: 14 15 Daniel A. Sasse, Esq. Crowell & Moring LLP 3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC 16 LA 1HAM & WATKINS LLP 17 18 By: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT CASE NO. 07-CV-05152-JW Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 7 of 9 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alice Kelly, declare: I am a citizen of 2 3 the United States over the age of 18. I am employed at the law firm of Crowell & Moring LLP, 3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor, Irine, Californa 92614-8505. I am not a 4 5 pary to or interested in the causes entitled on the documents to which this certificate of service relates. I hereby certify that on November 16, 2007, I served the document described below as: 6 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME 7 on the interested parties in this action by placing a copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, at 8 Irvine, California, addressed as follows: . 9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 10 D ~ .~ bn o go .c i 0 11 12 13 ~ .. II BY REGULAR MAIL. I caused such envelopes to be deposited in the United States mail, at Irvine~ CalIrorna with postage thereon .fully prepaid,. individually addressed to the paries as indicated above. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence in mailng. It is deposited with the United States postal service each day and that practice was followed in business for the service herein attested to. the ordinary course of BY FACSIMILE TRASMISSION. I caused a true copy of the foregoing document(s) to be transmitted to the pary listed above at the facsimile machine telephone number as last given by that person on any document which he or she has filed in this action and served upon this office. ~ ",ciN ~ ":'-0\ U S N\QOO ~ .. :2N ~ ' ~ ;sc:~ 14 15 D D 0) i:g: ~ .. .. 0 ~.~ ~ 16 17 18 the foregoing document in a sealed envelope or package designated by Federal Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, individually addressed to the party(s) as indicated on the attached service list, and caused such envelope(s) or package(s) to be delivered at Thee Park Plaza, 20th Floor, Irvine, California 92614-8505, to an authorized courer or driver authorized by Federal Express to receive documents for overnight delivery. BY FEDERA EXPRESS. I placed a tre copy of 19 20 21 D BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the offce of First Legal Support Services by hand to the offces of the addressee. BY ELECTRONIC MAIL. I caused a true copy of the foregoing document to be sent via electronic mail in .PDF format, pursuant to agreement between the parties listed on ~ ~ 22 23 the attached service list. FEDERA: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member ofthe bar of this Cour, at whose direction the service was made. 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 25 that the foregoing is tre and correct. Executed this 16th day of 26 27 28 November 2007, at Irvine, Californa. /s/ Alice Kelly ALICE KELLY 6 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAITIFFS' COMPLAIT CASE NO. 07-CY-05152-JW Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 8 of 9 1 SERVICE LIST Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello v. Apple, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC Case No. 07-cv-05152-JW 2 3 4 5 Max Folkenflk, Esq. Margaret McGerity, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello Folkenfl & McGerity 1500 Broadway, 21 st Floor 6 New York, NY 10036 Telephone Facsimile Email: 212-757-0400 212-757-2010 7 8 MFolkenflk~fmlaw.net MMcGerity~fmlaw.net Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 H. Tim Hoffman, Esq. 10 Arhur Wiliam Lazear, Esq. Morgan Matthew Mack, Esq. Hoffman & Lazear Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello ~ .~ bn ..c-4 0 . i0 11 ~ '-it o go 12 13 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: Facsimile: Email: ~ ~~~ ~ ",ciN ~ ":'-0\ OJ ~~~ S N\OCO .. .. o:2N-4 . 510-763-5700 510-835-1311 14 15 hth~hoffmanandlazear.com awl~hoffmanandlazear.com mm~hoffmanandlazear.com Daniel M. Wall, Esq. Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr., Esq. Chrstopher S. Yates, Esq. Adrian F. Davis, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc. 0 ~ .. .. ~ ~.~ 16 17 18 U Latham & Watkis LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: Facsimile: Email: 19 20 21 415-391-0600 415-395-8095 Dan.Wall~lw.com Al.Pfeiffer~lw.com Chrs.Y ates~lw.com 22 23 Adrian.Davis~lw.com Donald M. Falk, Esq. 24 25 Mayer Brown LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: Facsimile: Email: Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC 26 27 28 650-331-2030 650-331-2060 dfalk~mayerbrown.com 7 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAITIFFS' COMPLAIT CASE NO. 07-CY-05152-JW Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 30 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 9 of 9 1 Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. 2 3 Mayer Brown LLP 1909 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1.101 Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC 4 5 Telephone: Facsimile: Email: 202-263-3000 202-263-3300 aparasharami~mayerbrown.com 6 DCIVVDMS: 4502213_1 7 8 074931.0000208 9 10 ~ .~ bn o go ..c-4 0 . i0 -4 11 12 13 ~ '- II S 0:2 .. ~ ",ciN ~ ":'-0\ ..:s0\1o ~~~ ~ c 0\ Q) ..'-a-4 14 15 0 ~ .. .. ~ ~.~ 16 17 18 19 U 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAITIFFS' COMPLAIT CASE NO. 07-CY-05152-JW