Pringle v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Filing 25

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 24 AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF T-MOBILE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/20/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2012)

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

MARTIN L. FINEMAN (CA State Bar No. 104413)
1 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
2 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
3 Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
4
STEPHEN M. RUMMAGE (Admitted pro hac vice)
5 REBECCA FRANCIS (Admitted pro hac vice)
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
6 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, Washington 98101-3045
7 Telephone:
[phone]
Fax:
[phone]
8 Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
9
Attorneys for Defendant
10 T-Mobile USA, Inc.
11 ROBERT W. MILLS (CA State Bar No. 062154)
JOSHUA D. BOXER (CA State Bar No. 226712)
12 COREY B. BENNETT (CA State Bar No. 267816)
THE MILLS LAW FIRM
13 880 Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite 2
San Rafael, CA 94903
[phone]
14 Telephone:
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
15 Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
17 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Edward Pringle
18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
21 EDWARD PRINGLE, on behalf of himself and ) Case No. C12-00665 RS
all others similarly situated,
)
) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
22
Plaintiff,
) ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING
) SCHEDULE AND DATE FOR
23
v.
) CONSIDERATION OF T-MOBILE’S
) MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
24
T-MOBILE USA, INC., and DOES 1-100,
) AND STAY
)
25
Defendants.
) (Civil L.R. 6-1(b))
)
26
16

27
28

1
STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND HEARING DATE FOR T-MOBILE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY
Pringle v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. C12-00665 RS
DWT 19200576v1 0048172-000508

1
2

STIPULATION
Plaintiff Edward Pringle (“Pringle”) and defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”), by

3 and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:
4

1.

On January 10, 2012, Pringle filed a Complaint for Damages for Violation of the

5 Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08, in the Superior Court of California,
6 County of Marin, under Civil Case No. 1200132. Pringle served the Complaint on defendant T7 Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”), on January 13, 2012.
8

2.

On February 10, 2012, T-Mobile removed the Complaint to this Court under the

9 Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446, and 1453. [Dkt. 1].

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

10

3.

On February 16, 2012, Pringle and T-Mobile stipulated under Civil L.R. 6-1(a) to

11 extend until March 12, 2012, the time for T-Mobile to answer or otherwise respond to the
12 Complaint. [Dkt. 13].
13

4.

On March 12, 2012, T-Mobile filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay, setting

14 the motion for hearing on April 19, 2012, more than 35 days after the date on which it filed and
15 served the motion. See Civil L.R. 7-2(a). [Dkt. 14].
16

5.

On March 15, 2012, the Court issued an order reassigning the case to United States

17 District Judge Richard Seeborg and directing the parties to renotice any matters presently
18 scheduled for hearing. [Dkt. 20].
19

6.

On March 19, 2012, T-Mobile renoticed its motion to compel arbitration and stay

20 for hearing before Judge Seeborg on May 24, 2012, more than 35 days after the date on which it
21 filed the motion. See Civil L.R. 7-2(a).
22

7.

The parties are engaged in discussions that may lead to a consensual resolution of

23 this matter. The parties therefore have agreed to seek an extension of the time for Pringle to
24 respond to the motion to compel arbitration and stay, and to adjust the deadline for T-Mobile’s
25 reply brief. The requested extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline fixed by
26 Court order.
27
28

2
STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND HEARING DATE FOR T-MOBILE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY
Pringle v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. C12-00665 RS
DWT 19200576v1 0048172-000508

1

8.

Based on the foregoing, Pringle and T-Mobile hereby stipulate and request that the

2 Court enter an Order:
3

A. Extending the deadline for Pringle to respond to the motion to compel to

4 April 25, 2012 (30 days from the day Pringle would otherwise be required to respond under Civil
5 L.R. 7-3(a));
6

B. Extending the deadline for T-Mobile to file its reply in support of the motion to

7 compel to May 10, 2012.
8
9
10 Dated: March 19, 2012.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

11
12

By: /s/ Stephen M. Rummage
Stephen M. Rummage
Martin L. Fineman
Rebecca Francis

13
14

Attorneys for Defendant
T-MOBILE USA, INC.

15
16 Dated: March 19, 2012.

THE MILLS LAW FIRM

17
18

By: /s/ Joshua D. Boxer
Robert W. Mills
Joshua D. Boxer
Corey B. Bennett

19
20

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Edward Pringle

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND HEARING DATE FOR T-MOBILE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY
Pringle v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. C12-00665 RS
DWT 19200576v1 0048172-000508

1
2
3

ORDER

4

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

The Court approves the parties’ stipulation and EXTENDS the deadline for Mr. Pringle to

6 respond to T-Mobile’s motion to compel arbitration and stay until April 25, 2012, and the deadline
7 for T-Mobile to file its reply in support of its motion to compel arbitration and stay until May 10,
8 2012.
March
20TH
DATED this ____ day of ___________________, 2012.

9
10

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

11
12

RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Court Judge

13
14
Presented by:
15
16 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
17
18 By:
19
20
21

/s/ Stephen M. Rummage
Stephen M. Rummage
Martin L. Fineman
Rebecca J. Francis
Attorneys for Defendant
T-Mobile USA, Inc.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND HEARING DATE FOR T-MOBILE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY
Pringle v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. C12-00665 RS
DWT 19200576v1 0048172-000508