Newton v. Clearwire Corporation

Filing 57

STIPULATION and ORDER 56 signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 12/6/13 ORDERING this case DISMISSED with prejudice and without award of costs to either party. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
ROCHELLE L. WILCOX (State Bar No. 197790) 1 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2400 2 Los Angeles, California 90017-2566 Telephone (213) 633-6800 3 Fax (213) 633-6899 Email: rochellewilcox@dwt.com 4 STEPHEN M. RUMMAGE (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 5 KENNETH E. PAYSON (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 6 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101-3045 7 Telephone (206) 622-3150 Fax (206) 757-7700 8 Email: steverummage@dwt.com; kenpayson@dwt.com 9 Attorneys for Defendant CLEARWIRE CORPORATION, erroneously sued as CLEARWIRE, INC. 10 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 SHARON NEWTON, individually and on 15 behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 16 17 vs. 18 CLEARWIRE, INC., 19 Defendant. 20 JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) Case No. 2:11-cv-00783-WBS-DAD ) ) JOINT STATUS REPORT, STIPULATION, ) AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On February 4, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Status Report [Dkt. 52] advising the Court that: (i) on December 20, 2012, the court in Dennings v. Clearwire Corporation, Case No. 2:10cv-01859-JLR (W.D. Wash.), entered a Settlement Order and Final Judgment granting final approval of the parties’ class action settlement which, among other things, resolved the claims Ms. Newton asserted in the above-captioned action; and (ii) on January 18, 2013, objectors Gordon Morgan and Jeremy De La Gaza filed a Notice of Appeal of the Settlement Order and Final Judgment. 1 JOINT STATUS REPORT, STIPULATION & ORDER DISMISSING ACTION DWT 20537243v2 0065187-001084 Case No. 2:11-cv-00783-WBS-DAD 1 On February 14, 2013, the Court entered an Order [Dkt. 53]: (i) vacating the scheduling 2 conference scheduled for February 19, 2013; (ii) staying this matter until August 5, 2013; and 3 (iii) ordering the parties to file a Joint Status Report no later than August 5, 2013. 4 On August 5, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Status Report [Dkt. 54] advising the Court that: 5 (i) on April 22, 2013, the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary affirmance of the 6 Dennings district court’s Settlement Order and Final Judgment; (ii) the summary affirmance order 7 became final on June 3, 2013; (iii) on May 3, 2013, the Dennings district court granted class 8 counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses; and (iv) on June 3, 2013, objectors appealed 9 that order. The parties asked the Court to continue to stay this case pending final affirmance on 10 appeal of the fee award in Dennings. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 11 On August 7, 2013, the Court entered an order [Dkt. 55]: (i) staying the action until 12 February 5, 2014; and (ii) ordering the parties to file a Joint Status Report no later than 13 February 5, 2014. 14 The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, provide this Joint Status Report 15 advising the Court that: 16 On June 28, 2013, Dennings Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary affirmance of 17 the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees and expenses; 18 On September 9, 2013, the Ninth Circuit granted Dennings Plaintiffs’ motion for 19 summary affirmance; 20 On September 19, 2013, the Dennings parties and objectors filed a stipulation 21 dismissing the appeal without award of costs; 22 On September 27, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued an order that the parties should 23 bear their own costs on appeal pursuant to their stipulation; 24 On October 2, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate, making effective its 25 September 9, 2013, order granting summary affirmance. 26 27 28 2 JOINT STATUS REPORT, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER DWT 20537243v2 0065187-001084 Case No. 2:11-cv-00783-WBS-DAD 1 With the settlement approval process in Dennings now having reached its conclusion, the 2 parties stipulate and jointly request that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice and without 3 award of costs to either party. 4 Respectfully submitted this 6th day of December, 2013. 5 6 7 For Clearwire Corporation: For Plaintiff: DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 8 By: /s/ Kenneth E. Payson____________ By: /s/ Jonas Mann (authorized on 12/6/13) Kenneth E. Payson (admitted Jonas Mann 9 pro hac vice) 10 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 11 Attorneys for Defendant CLEARWIRE CORPORATION Of Attorneys for Plaintiff SHARON NEWTON 12 ORDER 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 This action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice and without award of costs to either 15 16 17 party. Dated: December 18, 2013 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 JOINT STATUS REPORT, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER DWT 20537243v2 0065187-001084 Case No. 2:11-cv-00783-WBS-DAD 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day, I caused to be electronically filed the foregoing document 3 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing 4 to the following counsel of record: 5 6 7 8 9 10 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 11 Michael McShane (mmcshane@audetlaw.com) Jonas Mann (jmann@audetlaw.com) Audet & Partners, LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Bryce Miller (bmmiller@baillonthome.com) Baillon Thome Jozwiak Miller & Wanta LLP 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2955 Minneapolis, MN 55402 DATED this 6th day of December, 2013. 12 13 s/ Kenneth E. Payson 14 Kenneth E. Payson (admitted pro hac vice) Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101-3045 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Fax: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 JOINT STATUS REPORT, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER DWT 20537243v2 0065187-001084 Case No. 2:11-cv-00783-WBS-DAD

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?