Hendricks v. AT&T Mobility LLC
Filing
45
Amended MOTION for Hearing (Adminstrative Relief) filed by AT&T Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Falk, Donald) (Filed on 9/14/2011)
1
2
3
4
DONALD M. FALK (SBN 150256)
dfalk@mayerbrown.com
MAYER BROWN LLP
Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone:
(650) 331-2000
Facsimile:
(650) 331-2060
5
6
7
8
9
JOHN NADOLENCO (SBN 181128)
jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
LISA W. CORNEHL (SBN 232733)
lcornehl@mayerbrown.com
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Telephone:
(213) 229-9500
Facsimile:
(213) 625-0248
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 two
10
motions to dismiss in Blau on that same date. The Court is also scheduled to hear argument on a
11
request to compel arbitration in Schroeder on October 14, the same day the Court is scheduled to
12
hear a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration in Bernardi. Also, in Bernardi, the Court is
13
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
Motions 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
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?