Endzweig v. Walmart.com USA LLC. et al

Filing 28

PRETRIAL ORDER NO.1. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/13/09. (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2009)

Endzweig v. Walmart.com USA LLC. et al

Doc. 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. WALMART.COM, et al., Defendant(s). _______________________________/ This document also applies to related actions: C-09-0096 PJH C-09-0111 PJH C-09-0116 PJH C-09-0138 PJH C-09-0139 PJH C-09-0156 PJH C-09-0180 PJH C-09-0225 PJH C-09-0236 PJH C-09-0244 PJH C-09-0274 PJH C-09-0294 PJH C-09-0297 PJH C-09-0340 PJH C-09-0349 PJH C-09-0361 PJH C-09-0368 PJH C-09-0375 PJH C-09-0377 PJH C-09-0378 PJH C-09-0391 PJH C-09-0398 PJH C-09-0399 PJH C-09-0400 PJH C-09-0402 PJH C-09-0434 PJH C-09-0445 PJH C-09-0447 PJH C-09-0496 PJH C-09-0553 PJH O'Connor v. Walmart.com, et al. Endzweig v. Walmart.com, et al. Schmitz v. Walmart.com, et al. Lynch, et al. v. Walmart.com, et al. Groce, et al. v. Netflix, et al. Sivek v. Walmart.com, et al. Faris v. Netflix, et al. Slobodin v. Netflix, et al. Anthony, et al. v. Walmart.com, et al. Polk-Stamps v. Netflix, et al. Sheeler v. Walmart.com, et al. Chapman v. Netflix, et al. Orozco v. Netflix, et al. Landels, et al. V. Netflix, et al. Grime v. Netflix, et al. Meyer v. Walmart.com, et al. Randall v. Walmart.com, et al. Hirsch v. Netflix, et al. Miscioscia v. Netflix, et al. Patras v. Netflix, et al. Chatelain v. Netflix, et al. Weiner v. Walmart.com, et al. Millrood v. Walmart.com, et al. Kober v. Walmart.com, et al. Lacabe v. Walmart.com, et al. Roy v. Netflix, et al. Bruno, et al. v. Walmart.com, et al. Zaker v. Netflix, et al. Parikh v. Netflix, et al. Johnson v. Walmart.com, et al. ANDREA RESNICK, et al., Plaintiff(s), No. C 09-0002 PJH PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C-09-0554 PJH Gannon v. Walmart.com, et al. C-09-0678 PJH Williams v. Netflix, et al. C-09-0956 PJH Norem v. Netflix, et al. C-09-0958 PJH Haddad v. Netflix, et al. C-09-0960 PJH Cornett v. Netflix, et al. C-09-0961 PJH Macias v. Netflix, et al. C-09-0962 PJH Randle v. Netflix, et al. C-09-1274 PJH Wiebe v. Netflix, et al. __________________________________/

Following the first case management conference in these cases, the court sets the following deadlines: 1. Within two weeks of the final decision of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

litigation to either grant or deny the request to consolidate and transfer the cases in MDL No. 2029, In Re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, plaintiffs for the above-listed thirty nine cases, shall file either a stipulation or motion for appointment of lead counsel and liaison counsel and for approval of the organizational structure of plaintiffs' counsel. 2. Within thirty days of the final decision of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

litigation to either grant or deny the request to consolidate and transfer the cases in MDL No. 2029, In Re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, plaintiffs for the above-listed thirty nine cases shall file a Consolidated Amended Complaint. 3. 4. Defendants shall respond to the complaint within forty-five days. The hearing on certain plaintiffs' motion to remand shall go forward on May

13, 2009, unless the parties notify the court that they have stipulated to remand. The court would appreciate notification by April 22, 2009, the date the opposition is due, and in any event no later than April 29, 2009, the date the reply is due. 5. The parties shall meet and confer and jointly prepare a further case

management conference statement taking into account the court's concerns as expressed at the April 9, 2009 conference and setting forth a comprehensive pretrial schedule. The joint statement shall be filed a week in advance of the second case management conference which will be held on July 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., and shall be accompanied by a 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

proposed Pretrial Order No. 2. The date may be advanced or continued as discussed at the conference by call to the courtroom deputy. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 13, 2009
UNIT ED
S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O

S

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

A

C

LI

FO

________T _____DER______________ _ O OR __ E I IS S PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON n United StatesPDistrictiltJudge Ham o hyllis J.
Judge

D

R NIA

NO

RT

H