Gallion v. Apple, Inc

Filing 45

STIPULATION and Proposed Order re Consolidation of Related Cases by Charlene Gallion. (Fazio, Jeffrey) (Filed on 4/12/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jeffrey L. Fazio (146043) ( Dina E. Micheletti (184141) ( FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP 2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315 San Ramon, CA 94583 T: 925-543-2555 F: 925-369-0344 Steven A. Schwartz (pro hac vice) ( Timothy N. Mathews (pro hac vice) ( CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 T: 610-642-8500 F: 610-649-3633 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Charlene Gallion and Christoper Corsi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 CHARLENE GALLION, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. APPLE, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, CHRISTOPHER CORSI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 20 21 22 v. 27 28 Plaintiff, Defendant. DANIEL CALIX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 25 26 No. CV 10-03316-RS APPLE INC., 23 24 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff, No. CV 10-01610-RS v. No. CV 10-05895-RS Plaintiff, APPLE INC., Defendant. Hon. Richard Seeborg 1 Pending before the Court are three actions that have been formally related by order of this 2 Court: Gallion v. Apple, Inc., CV-10-01660, Corsi v. Apple, Inc., CV-10-03316, and Calix v. 3 Apple, Inc., No. CV-10-05895 (collectively, the “Related Actions”). Because of their similarity 4 and the parties’ voluntary coordination of discovery and other aspects of the litigation, the parties 5 have agreed that formally consolidating the Related Actions will further the parties’ objectives 6 regarding their efficient and expeditious resolution. 7 STIPULATE as follows: 8 9 10 11 1. Accordingly, the parties hereby The Related Actions are hereby consolidated into Civil Action No. CV 10-01610- RS for pretrial proceedings before this Court. The consolidated action shall be captioned as “In re Apple iPhone/iPod Warranty Litigation.” 2. All related actions (as that term is defined in Civil Local Rule 3-12(a)) that are 12 subsequently filed in, or transferred to, this District shall be consolidated into this action for 13 pretrial purposes and Fazio | Micheletti LLP and Chimicles & Tikellis LLP shall continue to 14 serve as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the consolidated action. 15 3. This Order shall apply to every such related action, absent order of the Court. A 16 party that objects to such consolidation, or to any other provision of this Order, must file an 17 application for relief from this Order within thirty (30) days after the date on which a copy of the 18 order is mailed to the party’s counsel, pursuant to Paragraph 4, infra. 19 4. The parties shall file a Notice of Related Case pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12 20 whenever a case that should be consolidated with this action is filed in, or transferred to, this 21 District. If the Court determines that the case is related, the clerk shall: 22 a. place a copy of this Order in the separate file for such action; 23 b. serve on plaintiff' s counsel in the new case a copy of this Order; 24 c. direct that this Order be served upon defendants in the new case; and 25 d. make the appropriate entry in the Docket for the consolidated action. 26 27 5. This Order is entered without prejudice to the rights of any party to apply for severance of any claim or action, for good cause shown. 28 -1STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE CONSOLIDATION NOS. CV-10-01610, CV-10-03316, CV-10-05895 1 6. Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) is not required to respond to the complaint in 2 any action consolidated into this action, other than a consolidated complaint or a complaint 3 designated as the operative complaint. 4 7. Co-Lead Class Counsel shall prepare and file with the Court not later than May 5 30, 2011, a consolidated complaint containing the substantive allegations and claims for relief 6 pertaining to each of the Related Actions (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated 7 Complaint shall be the operative complaint in the consolidated action, and shall supersede all 8 complaints filed in any of the actions consolidated herein. Apple shall have thirty (30) days from 9 the filing of the Consolidated Complaint in which to plead or otherwise respond. 10 11 8. SO STIPULATED. DATED: April 12, 2011 Jeffrey L. Fazio Dina E. Micheletti FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP 12 13 Kimberly A. Kralowec Elizabeth Newman THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP LLP 14 15 Earl L. Bohachek THE LAW OFFICES OF EARL L. BOHACHEK 16 by 17 18 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Charlene Gallion, on behalf of herself and the proposed class, and Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel 19 20 21 DATED: April 12, 2011 Steven A. Schwartz Timothy N. Mathews CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 22 Rose F. Luzon James C. Shah SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ Jeffrey L. Fazio Jeffrey L. Fazio by /s/ Steven A. Schwartz Steven A. Schwartz Attorneys for Plaintiff, Christopher Corsi, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, and Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel -2- STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE CONSOLIDATION NOS. CV-10-01610, CV-10-03316, CV-10-05895 1 DATED: April 12, 2011 Philip Bohrer Scott E. Brady BOHRER LAW FIRM L.L.C. 2 3 John P. Wolff, III Christopher K. Jones KEOGH, COX & WILSON 4 5 6 by 7 /s/ Scott E. Brady Scott E. Brady Attorneys for Plaintiff, Daniel Calix on behalf of himself and the proposed class 8 9 10 DATED: April 12, 2011 Penelope A. Preovolos Andrew D. Muhlbach Heather A. Moser Samuel J. Boone Lunier MORRISON | FOERSTER LLP 11 12 13 by 14 15 Attorneys for Defendant, Apple, Inc. 16 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 /s/ Andrew D. Muhlbach Andrew D. Muhlbach Dated: , 2011 The Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE CONSOLIDATION NOS. CV-10-01610, CV-10-03316, CV-10-05895

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?