Yuncker v. Pandora Media, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING 38 Stipulation to Continue Time to Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 9/16/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2011)

Case3:11-cv-03113-JSW Document38

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785)
[e-mail]
BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450)
[e-mail]
PATRICK H. MORAN (270881)
[e-mail]
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 619/234-4599

11

JOSEPH J. SIPRUT (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
SIPRUT PC
122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312/427-1850

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

13

LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (CSB NO. 115163)
[e-mail]
TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9

SAN FRANCISCO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

10

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

Filed09/15/11 Page1 of 3

14
15
16
17
18
19

Attorneys for Defendant,
PANDORA MEDIA, INC.

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22
23

TROY YUNCKER, individually and on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated,

24

Plaintiff,

25
26
27

Case No. CV 11-3113-JSW
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR RESPONSIVE PLEADING

v.
PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,
Defendant.

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

CASE NO. CV- 11-3113-JSW

Case3:11-cv-03113-JSW Document38

STIPULATION

1

WHEREAS, on September 1, 2011, the Honorable U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, to

2
3

Filed09/15/11 Page2 of 3

whom this matter was previously assigned, denied Pandora’s Motion for Stay;

4

WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, Judge Jeffrey S. White issued an Order relating this

5

case to the In re Google Inc. Android Privacy Litigation MDL (the “Google MDL”), and ordered

6

the parties to appear at the September 23, 2011 Case Management Conference scheduled in that

7

matter;

8
9
10

WHEREAS, on September 14, 2011, this matter was reassigned to this Court for
coordination with the Google MDL;
WHEREAS, the parties had previously stipulated that if this Court denied Pandora’s

SAN FRANCISCO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Motion to Stay, Pandora’s responsive pleading would be due 10 court days from this Court’s

12
F ENWICK & W EST LLP

11

order, thereby setting September 16, 2011 as the date for Pandora to file its responsive pleading;

13
14
15

WHEREAS, before this Court’s September 13 Order, Defendant Pandora had requested
additional time from Plaintiff to file its responsive pleading;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff agreed to extend Defendant Pandora’s time to file its responsive

16

pleading to and including September 30, 2011 and will not agree to any further extensions of time

17

for Pandora to file its responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s complaint filed on June 27, 2011, and

18

WHEREAS, Defendant Pandora intends to seek an Order of the Court at the September

19

23, 2011 Case Management Conference continuing its time to file a responsive pleading to the

20

Complaint to the same date on which Google is required to file a responsive pleading in the

21

Google MDL, and to coordinate the briefing and hearing schedule on those responsive motions.

22

By entering this stipulation, Pandora does not intend to waive its ability to seek such a case

23

management order at the September 23, 2011 CMC;

24

NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiff has agreed to extend Defendant Pandora’s time to file its

25

responsive pleading to and including September 30, 2011 and because the responsive pleading is

26

likely to be a complex motion, the parties met and conferred in order to set longer periods for an

27

opposition and reply as follows:

28

If Defendant Pandora files a Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff shall file his opposition on or
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

1

CASE NO. CV- 11-3113-JSW

Case3:11-cv-03113-JSW Document38

1

Filed09/15/11 Page3 of 3

before November 1, 2011 and

2

Defendant Pandora shall file its Reply, if any, on or before November 23, 2011.

3

The parties will discuss hearing dates at the September 23, 2011 CMC as is convenient

4

with the Court’s schedule.

5
6

Dated:

September 15, 2011

WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP

7

By: /s/ Betsy Manifold
Betsy Manifold

8
9
10

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Dated:

September 15, 2011

FENWICK & WEST LLP

11
By: /s/ Tyler G. Newby
Tyler G. Newby

SAN FRANCISCO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12
13

Attorneys for Defendant
PANDORA MEDIA, INC.

14
15

ORDER

16
17

16th
SO ORDERED at San Francisco, California this ____ day of September, 2011.

18
19
_
Honorable Jeffrey S. White
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

2

CASE NO. CV- 11-3113-JSW