Valentine et al v. Nebuad, Inc. et al

Filing 75

STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding hearing date. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 02/23/09. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2009)

Michael J. Aschenbrener (admitted pro hac vice) 1 KAMBEREDELSON, LLC 2 350 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 3 [phone] 4 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DAN VALENTINE, DALE MORENSEN, 10 MELISSA BECKER, SAMUEL GREEN, SHERRON RIMPSEY, CHARLOTTE 11 MIRANDA, FRANK MIRANDA, SAUL DERMER, WAYNE COPELAND, CRYSTAL 12 REID, ANDREW PAUL MANARD, KATHLEEN KIRCH, TERRY KIRCH NEIL 13 DEERING, PAUL DRISCOLL, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 14 situated, 15 16 17 v. Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 3:08-cv-05113-TEH STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANT NEBUAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson

NEBUAD, INC., a Delaware Corporation; 18 BRESNAN COMMUNICATIONS, a New York Corporation; CABLE ONE, a Delaware 19 Corporation; EMBARQ, a Delaware Corporation; KNOLOGY, a Delaware 20 Corporation; WOW!, a Delaware Corporation; and JOHN DOES 1-20, corporations, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REGARDING HEARING DATE FOR
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DEFENDANT NEBUAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS

1

Case No. 3:08-cv-05113-TEH

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiffs and Defendant NebuAd, Inc. hereby stipulate and

2 agree as follows: 3 1. The hearing for NebuAd's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) will occur after Magistrate

4 Judge Chen resolves the pending issues of jurisdictional discovery (see Docs. 64 and 70) and at 5 the same time as the hearing on this case's other defendants' pending motions to dismiss, as 6 NebuAd's Motion to Dismiss concerns some of the same issues and the parties wish to keep the 7 proceedings on the same schedule. 8 2. NebuAd is required to file its reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss two weeks

9 before the rescheduled hearing. 10 11 3. 4. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on November 10, 2008. (Doc. 1). NebuAd filed its Motion to Dismiss on December 22, 2008 and re-noticed its

12 motion on January 30, 2009 for March 9, 2009. (Doc. 4) 13 5. Defendants Bresnan, Cable One, CenturyTel, Embarq, Knology, and WOW!

14 (collectively, "ISP Defendants") filed their respective motions to dismiss on January 30, 2009 and 15 noticed them for March 9, 2009. (Docs. 40, 52, 44, and 51). ISP Defendants' motions are based 16 on issues of personal jurisdiction, as well as other Rule 12(b)(6) issues. Defendant Bresnan also 17 filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on January 30, 2009 and noticed it for March 9, 2009. (Doc. 18 42). 19 6. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Immediate Jurisdictional Discovery

20 on Friday, February 13, 2009. (Doc. 64). 21 7. Plaintiffs filed their response to NebuAd's Motion to Dismiss on Tuesday,

22 February 17, 2009. (Doc. 65). 23 8. This is the first request for an extension of time concerning NebuAd's Motion to

24 Dismiss since NebuAd re-noticed its motion. Plaintiffs previously stipulated with NebuAd to 25 provide time to respond to its previously noticed Motion to Dismiss until January 30, 2009. 26 9. The parties request this extension because NebuAd's Motion to Dismiss raises

27 several of the same Rule 12(b)(6) issues that ISP Defendants raise in their motions to dismiss. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 Case No. 3:08-cv-05113-TEH 28 REGARDING HEARING DATE FOR
DEFENDANT NEBUAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS

1

12.

The parties believe it is in the best interest of the Court and all parties for these

2 issues to be resolved on the same schedule as ISP Defendants' motions to dismiss. 3 13. This requested time modification will require the Court to reschedule the hearing

4 on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, which is currently scheduled for March 9, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. 5 The parties propose that the Court reschedule the hearing for the same time that ISP Defendants' 6 Motions to Dismiss will be heard. 7 8 Dated: February 20, 2009 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Attorney for Defendant NebuAd, Inc. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 20, 2009 By: /s/ MICHAEL J. ASCHENBRENER KAMBEREDELSON, LLC Attorney for Plaintiffs By: /s/ MELINDA M. MORTON BERGESON, LLP

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REGARDING HEARING DATE FOR
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DEFENDANT NEBUAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS

UNIT ED

18

02/23/09 Dated: ______________

_____________________________________ Hon. Thelton E. Henderson United States District Judge

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

Ju

ER

N

D IS T IC T R

OF

3

Case No. 3:08-cv-05113-TEH

A

C

LI

FO

lton E. H dge The

enderso

n

R NIA

RT U O

NO

RT

H