Hendricks v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Filing 44

*** ERRONEOUS ENTRY *** MOTION for Hearing Administrative Relief: Request for Adjustment of Hearing Date filed by AT&T Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kevin Ranlett, # 2 Proposed Order)(Falk, Donald) (Filed on 9/14/2011) Modified on 9/15/2011 (mcl, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

DONALD M. FALK (SBN 150256)
[e-mail]
MAYER BROWN LLP
Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

5
6
7
8
9

JOHN NADOLENCO (SBN 181128)
[e-mail]
LISA W. CORNEHL (SBN 232733)
[e-mail]
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

10
Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15

PATRICK HENDRICKS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,

16

Plaintiff,

17

v.

18

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC,

19

Defendant.

Case No. CV 11-00409-CRB
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF:
REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF
HEARING DATE
Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF: REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF HEARING DATE
CASE NO. CV 11-00409-CRB

1

Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC (“ATTM”) moves for administrative relief to request a

2

combined hearing date for four cases, including this one, that involve overlapping counsel and

3

legal issues relating to ATTM’s arbitration agreement. Concurrent with the filing of this motion,

4

ATTM is filing similar motions for administrative relief in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Bernardi et

5

al., No. 3:11-cv-03992-CRB (N.D. Cal.) (related to Schroeder); Schroeder et al. v. AT&T

6

Mobility LLC, No. 3:11-cv-04412-CRB (N.D. Cal.) (related to Bernardi); and Blau et al. v.

7

AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:11-cv-00541-CRB (N.D. Cal.).

8

As the table on page 3 indicates, this Court is scheduled to hear a motion to compel

9

arbitration in this case on September 23, along with a motion to compel arbitration and a Rule

10

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in Blau on that same date. The Court is also scheduled to hear

11

argument on a request to compel arbitration in Schroeder on October 14, the same day the Court

12

is scheduled to hear a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration in Bernardi. Also, in

13

Bernardi, the Court is scheduled to hear a motion for a preliminary injunction on October 21.

14

ATTM respectfully requests that all four hearings take place on October 21. This case is

15

a putative class action filed by the same counsel who brought the arbitrations at issue in Bernardi

16

and Schroeder; Blau is another putative class action (brought by different counsel) that the Court

17

previously scheduled to be argued at the same time as this case because both matters involve the

18

core question whether the agreement to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis in ATTM’s

19

wireless service agreement with its customers is enforceable after the Supreme Court’s decision

20

in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).

21

Although ATTM believes that Bernardi and Schroeder should have no bearing on the

22

Hendricks and Blau motions, the plaintiff in this case has contended that ATTM’s opposition to

23

arbitration in Bernardi, Schroeder—and the more than 900 other arbitration claims involving the

24

ATTM/T-Mobile merger, all of which have been brought by Hendricks’ counsel—establishes

25

that Hendricks would not be able to vindicate his claims in arbitration, which he asserts is a

26

ground for refusing to enforce his arbitration agreement. See Pl.’s Memo. of Law in Opp. to

27

AT&T Mobility LLC’s Mot. to Compel Arbitration, at 1, 6-7, 10-11, 14-17, Hendricks, supra

28

(Aug. 8, 2011) (Dkt. No. 3). And the plaintiffs in Blau have incorporated those arguments in
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF: REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF HEARING DATE
CASE NO. CV 11-00409-CRB

1

their opposition to ATTM’s motion to compel arbitration. See Opp. to Defs.’ Am. Mot. to

2

Compel Arbitration, at 18-20, Blau, supra (Aug. 23, 2011) (Dkt. No. 44).

3

Given the degree of overlapping issues—and the fact that this case, Bernardi, and

4

Schroeder all involve the same counsel (on both sides)—ATTM believes that it would be more

5

efficient for the Court and the parties to hear argument together rather than to have two or more

6

separate hearings.

7

ATTM recognizes that the earliest date on which all six motions could be heard together

8

consistent with the Local Rules is October 14, but respectfully requests that the Court schedule

9

the motions for hearing on October 21 because Andrew Pincus, who is ATTM’s lead counsel for

10

the motions in this action, Schroeder, and Hendricks, has a conflicting obligation on October 14,

11

and ATTM’s lead counsel in Blau, Steven Rice, also has a conflict on October 14. See Decl. of

12

Kevin Ranlett ¶¶ 6-7. By contrast, Scott Bursor, counsel for the defendants in Bernardi and the

13

plaintiffs in Schroeder and Hendricks has not indicated that he has any conflicting obligations on

14

October 21. See Ranlett Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Counsel for the plaintiffs in Blau has not responded to

15

counsel for ATTM’s request for a stipulation to move the hearings to October 21. Id. ¶ 5. Of

16

course, if the Court would prefer to proceed on October 14, counsel for ATTM are prepared to

17

cancel the competing obligations.

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
-2MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF: REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF HEARING DATE
CASE NO. CV 11-00409-CRB

1

Current Schedule and ATTM’s Proposed Schedule

2
3

Case

AT&T
Lead
Counsel

Lead
Opposing
Counsel

Current Motion:
Current Hearing Date
(Docket No. for Hearing
Date)

Requested
Hearing
Dates

AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Bernardi et al.

Mayer
Brown
LLP

Bursor &
Fisher,
P.A.

Preliminary Injunction:
Oct. 21………………………
(Docket No. 20)

Oct. 21

Compel Arbitration:
Oct. 14………………………
(Docket No. 17)

Oct. 21

4
5
6
7
8

No. 3:11-cv-03992CRB (N.D. Cal.)

9
10
11

Hendricks v. AT&T
Mobility LLC

12
13

Mayer
Brown
LLP

Bursor &
Fisher,
P.A.

Compel Arbitration:
Sept. 23………………………
(Docket No. 35)

Oct. 21

Mayer
Brown
LLP

Bursor &
Fisher,
P.A.

Ex Parte Request for TRO:
Oct. 14………………………
(Docket No. 9)

Oct. 21

Mayer
Brown
LLP

Lenza H.
McElrath
III

Compel Arbitration:
Sept. 23………………………
(Docket No. 40)

Oct. 21

Motion to Dismiss:
Sept. 23………………………
(Docket No. 40)

Oct. 21

No. 3:11-cv-00409CRB (N.D. Cal.)

14
15

Schroeder et al. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC

16
17

No. 3:11-cv-04412CRB

18
19

Blau et al. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC

20
21

No. 3:11-cv-00541CRB

22

Crowell &
Moring
LLP

23
CONCLUSION

24
25

The Court should schedule the hearings on all six motions in the four cases identified

26

above for October 21, 2011, at 10 a.m. In the alternative, it should schedule the hearings on all

27

six motions for any other date that is convenient for the Court.

28

//
-3MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF: REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF HEARING DATE
CASE NO. CV 11-00409-CRB

1
2
3
4

Date: September 14, 2011

MAYER BROWN LLP
By:

/s Donald M. Falk
Donald M. Falk
DONALD M. FALK
Attorneys for AT&T Mobility LLC

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF: REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF HEARING DATE
CASE NO. CV 11-00409-CRB