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)

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