Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company et al

Filing 44

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 10/8/14 ORDERING that Verizon's time to answer or otherwise respond to Sprint's Complaint is EXTENDED until October 15, 2014. (Kastilahn, A)

1 HENRY WEISSMANN (SBN 132418)
[e-mail]
2 TAMERLIN J. GODLEY (SBN 194507)
[e-mail]
3 MARGARET G. MARASCHINO (SBN 267034)
[e-mail]
4 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue
5 Thirty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
6 Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
7
Attorneys for Defendant VERIZON
8 CALIFORNIA, INC.
9 [Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13 SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY L.P.,
14
Plaintiff,
15
vs.
16
PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
17 D/B/A AT&T CALIFORNIA;
VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC; SUREWEST
18 TELEPHONE; and SUREWEST
19 TELEVIDEO,
Defendants.
20

Case No. 2:14-cv-01257-MCE-CKD
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING TIME FOR VERIZON
CALIFORNIA, INC TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT
Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr,
Courtroom: #7
Action Filed: May 21, 2014

21
STIPLULATION
22
23

Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”) together with Defendant

24 Verizon California, Inc. (“Verizon”) stipulate and agree as follows:
25

WHEREAS, Verizon and Sprint have stipulated to extended Verizon’s time to respond to

26 the Complaint by twenty-eight (28) days to October 8, 2014 pursuant to Local Rule 144(a).
27
28

WHEREAS, Local Rules 143 and 144(a) provides that further extensions of time require
the approval of the Court.
24533676.1

JOINT STIPULATION

1

WHEREAS, Sprint has brought effectively the same claims as set forth in the Complaint in

2 this action against various Verizon entities in numerous jurisdictions throughout the country.
3

WHEREAS, Sprint and Verizon are engaged in active settlement discussions to resolve the

4 dispute and avoid the necessity of litigation; however, a settlement has not yet been reached.
5

WHEREAS, as of today, Verizon and Sprint, as part of their ongoing settlement

6 discussions and to streamline and consolidate the various litigations, have agreed to file a Motion
7
8

to sever Sprint’s claims against Verizon in this matter and to transfer those claims to the Eastern
District of Missouri, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.

9
10
11

Section 1404.
WHEREAS, Sprint already has a lawsuit pending against MCI Metro Access Transmission

12 Services, Inc. and MCI Communications Services, Inc. – two Verizon entities – in that district. As
13 a result, consolidation of all of the Verizon entities in the Eastern District of Missouri will provide
14

a forum where Verizon can resolve all of their issues with Sprint.

15
WHEREAS, as part of the parties’ agreement and in order to effectuate a more orderly
16
17

progression of the litigation, the parties have further agreed to extend the time for Verizon to

18 answer the Complaint in this action until October 15, 2014 in order to hopefully allow the Court
19 time to resolve the Motion to sever and transfer, which will be filed without opposition and with a
20 request to be reviewed on an expedited basis.
21
22

WHEREAS, Verizon and Sprint do not seek this extension for the purposes of delay but to
allow the parties to facilitate the orderly consolidation of similar lawsuits, to conduct efficient

23
24
25

settlement discussions, and to conserve the resources of the parties and the Court.
WHEREAS, all parties to this action have consented to this extension of time to respond.

26

THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby stipulated that:

27

Verizon’s time to answer or otherwise respond to Sprint’s Complaint will be extended for

28 an additional 7 days, from October 8 until October 15, 2014.
24533676.1

-2JOINT STIPULATION

1

Sprint and Verizon collectively request that the Court grant Verizon this additional time to

2 answer or otherwise respond to Sprint’s Complaint.
3
4
5
6

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October, 2014.
DATED: October 1, 2014

7
8

ALBORG MARTIN & BUDDE LLP
DARRELL C. MARTIN
DENAE H. BUDDE
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1010
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

9
STEESE, EVANS & FRANKEL, P.C.
CHARLES W. STEESE
JOHN T. OSGOOD
KIMBERLY A. SMILEY
6400 S. Fiddlers Green Cir.,
Suite 1820
Denver, CO 80111

10
11
12
13
14

By:
15
16

/s/ Charles W. Steese
Charles W. Steese
As authorized on October 1, 2014

Attorneys for Plaintiff SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY L.P.

17
18
19
20 DATED: October 1, 2014

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24533676.1

-3JOINT STIPULATION

HENRY WEISSMANN
TAMERLIN J. GODLEY
MARGARET G. MARASCHINO
355 South Grand Avenue
Thirty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

1
2
3
4
5
6

By:

7
8

/s/ Tamerlin J. Godley
Tamerlin J. Godley

Attorneys for Defendant VERIZON CALIFORNIA,
INC.

9
10
DATED: October 1, 2014
11
12
13
14

MAYER BROWN LLP
MATTHEW H. MARMOLEJO
350 South Grand Avenue
25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
213-229-9500-9483
213-625-0248 (fax)

15
By:

16
17

/s/ Matthew H. Marmolejo
Matthew H. Marmolejo
As authorized on October 1, 2014

Attorneys for Defendant PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY

18
19
20

ORDER

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 DATED: October 8, 2014
__________
__________
___________
__________
____
MORRISON C. ENGL
N
LAND, JR, C
CHIEF JUDG
GE
UNITED ST
TATES DIS
STRICT COU
URT

24
25
26
27
28
24533676.1

-4JOINT STIPULATION