Walter et al v. Hughes Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 79

STIPULATION AND ORDER extending Defendants time to respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint to 8/4/11. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 7/14/11. (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Robert B. Hawk (SBN 118054)
J. Christopher Mitchell (SBN 215639)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
525 University Avenue, 4th Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
and HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TINA WALTER, CHRISTOPHER BAYLESS,
and ERIC SCHUMACHER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15

HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and
HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,

16

CASE NO.: 09-CV-02136 SC
FOURTH STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
SECOND AMENDED
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
The Honorable Samuel Conti

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FOURTH STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 09-CV-02136 SC
\\058224/000230 - 97426 v1

1

Plaintiffs Tina Walter, Christopher Bayless, and Eric Schumacher and Defendants Hughes

2

Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC (collectively, the “Parties”), hereby

3

stipulate to, and seek the Court’s approval of, an order extending the time for Defendants to

4

answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Consolidated Class Action

5

Complaint (“SAC”):

6

WHEREAS, on July 6, 2011, the Court issued an Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for

7

Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Settlement (the “Order”);

8

WHEREAS, the Court set a status conference for August 26, 2011;

9

WHEREAS, the Parties are currently assessing the implications of the Order on the case

10

broadly and intend to explore whether it makes sense to submit a revised settlement and

11

supporting papers to the Court for its consideration;

12

WHEREAS, by order dated April 13, 2011, the Court ordered that the deadline for

13

Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint would be fourteen

14

(14) calendar days after the Court ruled on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of

15

Settlement, which currently makes Defendants’ response date July 20, 2011;

16
17

WHEREAS, responding to the SAC will require a return to litigation after the parties had
been focused for the past several months on trying to settle the case;

18

WHEREAS, Defendants intend to respond to the SAC by filing a motion to dismiss, and,

19

in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 27, 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion,

20

563 U.S. __ (2011), likely also a motion to compel arbitration;

21

WHEREAS, Defendants require a short extension of time to prepare these motions;

22

WHEREAS, the Parties believe that a short extension of the response deadline would aid

23

ongoing discussions, and, depending on the outcome of those discussions, potentially prevent the

24

unnecessary expenditure of resources in connection with briefing motions that this Court may

25

ultimately never have to adjudicate;

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
FOURTH STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 09-CV-02136 SC
\\058224/000230 - 97426 v1

1
2
3
4
5

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties through their respective
counsel, that:
1. The deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended
Complaint is extended by 15 days, from July 20, 2011 until August 4, 2011.
2. Consistent with the July 6, 2011 Order, the Parties will submit a Joint Case

6

Management Conference Statement on August 19, 2011, seven days in advance of the August 26,

7

2011 Status Conference.

8

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

9
10

Dated: July 8, 2011

11

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
By:

/s/____________
Robert B. Hawk

12
13

Attorneys for Defendants
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and
HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS LLC

14
15
16

Dated: July 8, 2011

17

AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
By:

/s/ __________
Joshua C. Ezrin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

18
19

PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
S

Dated: July 14 2011
___,

UNIT
ED

23

RT
U
O

22

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

_____________________________________
ED
ORDER
O

IT IS S

R NIA

20

THE HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI
onti

Judge S

26

A

H

ER

LI

RT

25

FO

amuel C

NO

24

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

27
28
2
FOURTH STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 09-CV-02136 SC
\\058224/000230 - 97426 v1

1

I, Robert B. Hawk, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

2

Third Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended

3

Consolidated Class Action Complaint. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby

4

attest that Joshua Ezrin concurred in this filing.

5
6

DATED: July 8, 2011

HOGAN LOVELLS LLP

7
By

8

/s/
Robert B. Hawk

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
FOURTH STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO.: 09-CV-02136 SC
\\058224/000230 - 97426 v1