Polk-Stamps v. Netflix, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ADR Clerks Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2009)

Download PDF
Polk-Stamps v. Netflix, Inc. et al Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California Resnick, Plaintiff(s), v. Walmart.com USA LLC, Defendant(s). This Document Also Relates to: 3:09-cv-00096-PJH O'Connor v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00111-PJH Endzweig v. Walmart.com USA LLC. et al 3:09-cv-00116-PJH Schmitz v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00138-PJH Lynch et al v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00139-PJH Groce et al v. Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00156-PJH Sivek v. Walmart.com USA LLC. et al 3:09-cv-00180-PJH Faris v. Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00225-PJH Slobodin v. Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00236-PJH Anthony et al v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00244-PJH Polk-Stamps v. Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00274-PJH Sheeler v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00294-PJH Chapman v. Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00297-PJH Orozco v. Netflix, Inc. et al Notice Re: Noncompliance With Court Order 09-00002 PJH -1Dockets.Justia.com 09-00002 PJH NOTICE RE: NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Northern District of California 3:09-cv-00340-PJH Landels et al v. Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00349-PJH Grime v. Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00361-PJH Meyer v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00368-PJH Randall v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00377-PJH Miscioscia v. Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00391-PJH Chatelain v. Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00398-PJH Weiner v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00399-PJH Millrood v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00400-PJH Kober v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00402-PJH Lacabe v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00445-PJH Bruno et al v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00447-PJH Zaker -v- Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00496-PJH Parikh v. Netflix, Inc. et al 3:09-cv-00553-PJH Johnson v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00554-PJH Gannon v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al 3:09-cv-00678-PJH Williams v. Netflix, Inc. et al United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The parties have failed to file an ADR Certification and either a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Selecting an ADR Process or a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference as required by the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order. Counsel shall Meet and Confer forthwith in an attempt to agree on an ADR process for this matter. Thereafter, counsel, on behalf of themselves and each party, promptly shall file an ADR Certification and either 1) a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Selecting ADR Process, or 2) a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference (Civil L.R. 16-8(b), ADR L. R. 3-5(b) Civil L.R. 16-8(c), ADR L. R. 3-5(c), (d)). (These forms are available at www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov.) Notice Re: Noncompliance With Court Order 09-00002 PJH -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Northern District of California Further, in accordance with ADR L.R. 3-5(e) counsel shall concurrently provide a copy of all documents filed pursuant to this notice directly to the ADR Unit either by fax (415-522-4112), hand delivery (ADR Program, USDC, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, California), or by PDF attachment to an e-mail directed to adr@cand.uscourts.gov. It is the responsibility of counsel to schedule an ADR Phone Conference, if required, to occur before the Case Management Conference. United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: March 25, 2009 RICHARD W. WIEKING Clerk by: Timothy J. Smagacz ADR Program Administrator 415-522-4205 Tim_Smagacz@cand.uscourts.gov Notice Re: Noncompliance With Court Order 09-00002 PJH -3- PROOF OF SERVICE Case Name: Case Number: Resnick v. Walmart.com USA LLC 09-00002 PJH I declare that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the action. My business address is: ADR Program United States District Court Norther District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue Floor 16 San Francisco, CA 94102 On March 25, 2009, I served a true and correct copy of: Notice Re: Noncompliance With Court Order [X] electronically, I caused said documents to be transmitted using ECF as specified by General Order No. 45 to the following parties: Lori Sambol Brody Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 lbrody@kaplanfox.com Robert J. Gralewski Jr. Gergosian & Gralewski LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1410 Suite 1410 San Diego, CA 92101 bob@gergosian.com Alex C. Turan Montura Law Group 2070 N. Broadway Suite 5492 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 aturan@monturalaw.com Paul Alexander Howrey LLP 1950 University Avenue, 4th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 alexanderp@howrey.com Thomas A. Isaacson Howrey LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 3600 Washington, DC 20004 IsaacsonT@howrey.com Emily L. Maxwell Esq. HOWREY LLP 525 Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 MaxwellE@howrey.com Peter A. Barile III Howrey LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 3600 Washington, DC 20004 BarileP@howrey.com Robert G. Abrams Howrey LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 3600 Washington, DC 20004 AbramsR@howrey.com Stephen Edward Morrissey Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com Marc M. Seltzer Susman Godfrey LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com Richard Wolf Hess Susman Godfrey LLP 1000 Louisiana Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 rhess@susmangodfrey.com Neal Stuart Manne Susman Godfrey 1000 Louisiana #5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 nmanne@susmangodfrey.com Kathryn Parsons Hoek Susman Godfrey LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars Ste 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 khoek@susmangodfrey.com Genevieve Vose Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 gvose@susmangodfrey.com Keith E. Eggleton Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 keggleton@wsgr.com Jonathan M. Jacobson Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 1301 Avenue of the America 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 jjacobson@wsgr.com Scott Andrew Sher Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 1700 K Street, NW Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20006 ssher@wsgr.com Sara Ciarelli Walsh Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 1301 Avenue of the America 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 sciarelli@wsgr.com Christopher T. Heffelfinger Berman DeValerio 425 California Street Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104 cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com Melissa Conwell Shapiro Saveri & Saveri, Inc. 111 Pine Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111 mshapiro@saveri.com Harry Shulman The Mills Law Firm 880 Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite 2 San Rafael, CA 94903 harry@millslawfirm.com Linda M. Fong Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 350 Sansome Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 lfong@kaplanfox.com Michele Chickerell Jackson Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 mjackson@lchb.com Jeff D Friedman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 jefff@hbsslaw.com David W. Mitchell Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 davidm@csgrr.com [ ] by Facsimile, I caused said documents to be transmitted to the following parties by fax machine: [ ] by U. S. Mail, I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid in the United States Post Office Mail Box in San Francisco, California, addressed as follows: I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 25, 2009 in San Francisco, California. RICHARD W. WIEKING Clerk by: Timothy J. Smagacz ADR Program Administrator 415-522-4205 Tim_Smagacz@cand.uscourts.gov

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?