Espitia et al v. Hipster, Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FROM JULY 11, 2013 TO AUGUST 15, 2013: A Joint Case Management Statement due by 8/8/2013. Case Management Conference set for 8/15/2013 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 7/9/2013. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division FRANCISCO ESPITIA, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Plaintiff, v. 13 HIPSTER, INC., No. C 13-00432 LB ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FROM JULY 11, 2013 TO AUGUST 15, 2013 14 15 16 Defendant. _____________________________________/ On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff Francisco Espitia filed a complaint against Defendant Hipster, 17 Inc., a Delaware corporation. Complaint, ECF No. 1.1 On March 29, 2013, Espitia served the 18 Defendant. Return of Service Executed, ECF No. 6; Motion, ECF No. 9. On May 3, 2013, the court 19 continued the CMC to July 11, 2013, because Hipster had not consented or appeared. Order to 20 Continue, ECF No. 10. The court also ordered both parties to file a joint case management 21 statement by July 3, 2013. Id. Then on May 28, 2013, Espitia filed an amended complaint. 22 Amended Complaint, ECF No. 11. Finally, on July 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Pendency of 23 Other Actions under Civil Local Rule 3-13.2 24 25 26 27 28 1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page number at the top of the document. 2 Plaintiffs’ Notice indicates that there are similar cases pending in this district. See ECF No. 12 (discussing similarities with this case and Opperman v. Path, Inc. et al., No. C 13-453 JST; Gutierrez v. Instagram, Inc., No. C 12-6550 JST; and Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc., No. C 12-1529 JST). C 13-00432 ORDER 1 2 3 Neither party filed a joint case management statement by July 3, 2013. Defendant still has not answered the Complaint (or the Amended Complaint), or otherwise appeared in this matter. Under the circumstances, the court CONTINUES the initial case management conference from 4 Thursday, July 11, 2013, to Thursday, August 15, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, 5 U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 9, 2013 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Civil L.R. 3-13 does not appear to apply in this situation. Local Rule 3-13 applies when there are similarities between a case and “another action which is pending in any other federal or state court.” Civ. L.R. 3-13(a) (emphasis added). Instead, it appears that Civil Local Rule 3-12 applies. See Civ. L.R. 3-12(b) (rule applies to multiple actions “pending in this District”). If Plaintiffs want the court to relate these cases, they should file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related under Civil Local Rule 3-12(b). That motion should be filed in the earliest-filed case, which appears to be the Opperman matter, No. C 13-453 JST (case filed in March 2012 and later transferred to this district). C 13-00432 ORDER 2

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?