Bryan Pringle v. William Adams Jr et al
Filing
82
Joint EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue The Hearing Date on Defendants' Rule 12 Motions from January 24, 2011 to January 31, 2011 IN ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE WITH HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Defendants Rister Editions, Shapiro Bernstein and Co. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Miller, Donald)
1 DONALD A. MILLER (SBN 228753)
dmiller@loeb.com
2 BARRY I. SLOTNICK (Pro Hac Vice)
bslotnick@loeb.com
3 TAL DICKSTEIN (Pro Hac Vice)
tdickstein@loeb.com
4 LOEB & LOEB LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200
5 Los Angeles, California 90067-4120
Telephone: 310-282-2000
6 Facsimile: 310-282-2200
7 Attorneys for Defendants SHAPIRO,
BERNSTEIN & CO., INC. (incorrectly
8 sued as Shapiro, Bernstein & Co.);
RISTER EDITIONS and DAVID GUETTA
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SOUTHERN DIVISION
14
15 BRYAN PRINGLE, an individual,
Plaintiff,
16
17
v.
18 WILLIAM ADAMS, JR.; STACY
FERGUSON; ALLAN PINEDA; and
19 JAIME GOMEZ, all individually and
collectively as the music group The
20 Black Eyed Peas, et al.,
Defendants.
21
22
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. SACV 10-1656 JST (RZx)
Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker
Courtroom 10A
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
THE HEARING DATE ON
DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12
MOTIONS (FROM JANUARY 24
TO JANUARY 31) IN ORDER TO
CONSOLIDATE WITH HEARING
ON PLAINTIFF' MOTION FOR
S
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 31)
23
24
25
26
27
28
LA2100122.2
213532-10005
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 TO PLAINTIFF BRYAN PRINGLE AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Local Rule 7-19, Defendants
2
3 Adams, Ferguson, Gomez, and Pineda (individually and collectively as the music
4 group The Black Eyed Peas), Tab Magnetic Publishing, Headphone Junkie
5 Publishing LLC, Will.I.Am Music LLC, Jeepney Music Inc., Cherry River Music
6 Co., and EMI April Music Inc (the “Black Eyed Peas Defendants”); Defendants
7 Guetta, Rister Editions, Shapiro Bernstein & Co., Inc. (incorrectly sued as “Shapiro
8 Bernstein Co.”) (the “Shapiro Bernstein Defendants”); and Defendants UMG
9 Recordings Inc. and Interscope Records (the “UMG Defendants”) (collectively
10 “Defendants”) hereby apply to the Court ex parte for an Order continuing the
11 hearing date on Defendants’ previously filed and completely briefed Rule 12
12 motions (Document Nos. 52, 53, 55, 56) (collectively, the “Rule 12 Motions”) in
13 order to consolidate the hearing date for the Rule 12 Motions with the hearing date
14 for Plaintiff’s previously filed motion for preliminary injunction (Document No. 73)
15 (the “P.I. Motion”) (collectively, the Rule 12 Motions and the P.I. Motion are
16 referred to as the “Motions”). The Rule 12 Motions are currently set for hearing on
17 January 24. The P.I. Motion is currently set for hearing on January 31. Thus, by
18 this ex parte application, Defendants request that the hearing on the Rule 12
19 Motions be continued to January 31 so that all of the Motions are heard on the same
20 date.
21
Defendants make this request in the interests of efficiency for all parties and
22 for the convenience of the Court. The Black Eyed Peas Defendants and the Sharpiro
23 Bernstein Defendants are the moving parties for the Rule 12 Motions, and counsel
24 for the Black Eyed Peas Defendants will be traveling from Chicago and counsel for
25 the Sharpiro Bernstein Defendants will be traveling from New York in order to
26 attend the hearings and argue the Rule 12 Motions and the P.I. Motion. In addition,
27 counsel for Plaintiff Pringle (represented by two firms located in Chicago)
28 presumably will be traveling from Chicago. Thus, consolidating the hearings for the
LA2100122.2
213532-10005
1
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 Rule 12 Motions to the same date as the P.I. Motion will obviate the need for
2 counsel for Defendants and Plaintiff to travel to Los Angeles for the hearings on the
3 Motions twice within seven days.
4
The name, address and telephone number of Plaintiff’s counsel is as follows:
Dean A Dickie
Kathleen E Koppenhoefer
Robert C Levels
Ryan Christopher Williams
Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone PLC
225 West Washington Street Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60606-3439
312-460-4217
5
6
7
8
9
Ira P Gould
Ryan L Greely
Gould Law Group
120 North LaSalle Street Suite 2750
Chicago, IL 60602
312-781-0680
10
11
12
13
George L. Hampton IV
Colin C. Holley
HamptonHolley LLP
2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 260
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949.718.4551
14
15
16
17
Defendants previously sought Plaintiff’s counsel’s consent to continue the
18 hearing on the Rule 12 Motions to January 31, but counsel refused. Because
19 Plaintiff was not willing to stipulate to continue the hearing on the Rule 12 Motions,
20 it is Defendants’ understanding that Plaintiffs will oppose this application.
21
22 Dated: January 10, 2011
LOEB & LOEB LLP
23
24
By: /s/ Donald A. Miller
Donald A. Miller
Barry I. Slotnick
Tal E. Dickstein
Attorneys for Defendants
SHAPIRO, BERNSTEIN & CO., INC.
(incorrectly sued as Shapiro, Bernstein &
Co.); RISTER EDITIONS and DAVID
GUETTA
25
26
27
28
LA2100122.2
213532-10005
2
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT
EX PARTE APPLICATION
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
2
On December 13, 2010, the Black Eyed Peas Defendants filed a motion to
3 dismiss the first amended complaint, a motion to strike, and a motion for more
4 definite statement (Document No. 52) (the “Black Eyed Peas motions”), in which
5 the UMG Defendants joined. Also on December 13, 2010, the Shapiro Bernstein
6 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (Document No.
7 53) (the “Shapiro Bernstein motion”), in which the Black Eyed Peas Defendants
8 joined in part (Document No. 55) and the UMG Defendants joined in part
9 (Document No. 56). The Black Eyed Peas motions and the Shapiro Bernstein
10 motion are set for hearing on January 24, 2011. (The Black Eyed Peas motions and
11 the Shapiro Bernstein motion are referred to collectively as the “Rule 12 Motions.”)
12 The Rule 12 Motions have been fully briefed. Plaintiff filed his opposition papers in
13 connection with the Rule 12 Motions on January 3, 2011 (Document Nos. 72, 74),
14 and the Black Eyed Peas Defendants and the Shapiro Bernstein Defendants have
15 filed their reply papers on January 10.
16
Three weeks after Defendants filed the Rule 12 Motions, on January 3, 2011,
17 Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction (the “P.I. Motion”), which is set
18 for hearing on January 31.
19
Counsel for the Black Eyed Peas Defendants and counsel for the Shapiro
20 Bernstein Defendants will be traveling across the country in order to attend the
21 hearings and argue the Rule 12 Motions and the P.I. Motion. Specifically, counsel
22 for Black Eyed Peas Defendants will be traveling from Chicago, and counsel for the
23 Shapiro Bernstein Defendants will be traveling from New York. In addition,
24 because the Plaintiff is represented by two firms located in Chicago, his counsel
25 presumably will also be traveling from Chicago in order to argue the Rule 12
26 Motions and the P.I. Motion. Thus, in the interest of efficiency, obviating the need
27 for counsel for all parties to travel to Los Angeles twice within the span of seven
28
LA2100122.2
213532-10005
1
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT
EX PARTE APPLICATION
1 days for the hearings on the Rule 12 Motions and the P.I. Motion, the Court should
2 continue the hearing on Defendant’ Rule 12 Motions.
3
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants request that the Court grant
4 Defendants’ application and continue the hearing on Defendants’ Rule 12 Motions
5 (currently set for January 24, 2011) to January 31, 2011, so that they may be heard
6 at the same time as Plaintiff’s P.I. Motion.
7
8 Dated: January 10, 2011
LOEB & LOEB LLP
9
10
By: /s/ Donald A. Miller
Donald A. Miller
Barry I. Slotnick
Tal E. Dickstein
Attorneys for Defendants
SHAPIRO, BERNSTEIN & CO., INC.
(incorrectly sued as Shapiro, Bernstein &
Co.); RISTER EDITIONS and DAVID
GUETTA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LA2100122.2
213532-10005
2
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT
EX PARTE APPLICATION
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?