Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge George H. King. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and pursuant to the parties' stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED: 1. Siegel v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Case No. CV-13-04418 GHK (MRW) and Marya v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Case No. CV -13-04460 GHK (MRW) are consolidated for all purposes. 2. Nothing in Defendant's agreement to consolidation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) shall be construed to indicate Defendant's agreement that class certificationis appropriate for either of the Related Actions, for the proposed consolidated class action, or for any other related action. 3. Plaintiffs shall file a Consolidated Complaint within ten (10) days of the entry of this order consolidating the aforementioned cases. 4. Defendant shall respond to the Consolidated Complaint within thirty (30) days of the filing of a Consolidated Complaint, or on or before August 30, 2013, whichever date is later. 5. Parties shall follow the briefing schedule per Local Rule and not deviate therefrom. We see no need for extended briefing insomuch as the parties will have met and conferred pursuant to L.R. 7-3 and will be fully advised of each others agreements and authorities. If the parties fail to fully discharge their obligation under L.R> 7-3 in good faith, any motion will be denied 6. The Low Numbered case, CV 13-4418 GHK is hereby dismissed without prejudice do the its consolidation with case CV 13-4418-GHK. Cases associated with Lead Case 13 (shb)

II
-

---····-•••""

..a..

I

IIGU Vti.J..L..I..L.V

I

'""'"t:J_. .... ._,-

.---~~---

FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT CQ.L)~T

1

2
3
4

5
6

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

8
9

10
11
12

ROBERT SIEGEL, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

v.
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC,
INC.,

18

Defendant.

19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-04418-GHK (MRWx)

Cv' I~ -'{·Lf-[po -bt H-K.CU
.~ORDER

NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT
[Caption Continued On Next Page]

21

22
23
24

25

26
27
28

21195397.1

0

1
2

3

\

:)

)

(

II

'

RUPA MARYA, On Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated,

4

Plaintiff,

5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24

25

26
27

28

v.
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC,
INC.,
Defendant.

--------------~---------

) Case No. CV 13-04460-GHK (MRWx)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

~·.)

II
-

1

---

....... u u

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and pursuant to the parties' stipulation, IT IS

2

SO ORDERED:

3

1.

Siegel v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Case No. CV-13-04418 GHK

4

(MRW) and Marya v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., Case No. CV -13-04460 GHK

5

(MRW) are consolidated for

6

2.

::~11

purposes.

Nothing in Defendant's agreement to consolidation under Fed. R. Civ.

7

P. 42(a) shall be construed to indicate Defendant's agreement that class certification

8

is appropriate for either of the Related Actions, for the proposed consolidated class

9

action, or for any other related action.

10
11
12

3.

Plaintiffs shall file a Consolidated Complaint within ten (10) days of

the entry of this order consolidating the aforementioned cases.
4.

Defendant shall respond to the Consolidated Complaint within thirty

13

(30) days of the filing of a Consolidated Complaint, or on or before August 30,

14

2013, whichever date is later.

15

16
17
18

23
24
25

L

I

26
27

28