Opperman et al v. Path, Inc. et al

Filing 511

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 510 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Setting Page Limits for Defendant Apple Inc.'s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Second Consolidated Amended Complaint filed by Apple Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 27, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Robert B. Hawk (Bar No. 118054)
Maren J. Clouse (Bar No. 228726)
Jenny Q. Shen (Bar No. 278883)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
4085 Campbell Avenue, Suite 100
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone: + 1 [phone]
Facsimile: + 1 [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
8

Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13

MARC OPPERMAN, et al.,

14
15

Plaintiffs,
v.

16
PATH, INC., et al.
17
18

Defendants.

Case No.: 13-cv-00453-JST
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
SETTING PAGE LIMITS FOR DEFENDANT
APPLE INC.’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
SECOND CONSOLIDATED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
THE HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR

19

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO CASES:

20

Opperman v. Path, Inc., No. 13-cv-00453-JST
Hernandez v. Path, Inc., No. 12-cv-1515-JST
Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-cv-1529-JST
Gutierrez v. Instagram, Inc. No. 12-cv-6550-JST
Espita v. Hipster, Inc. No. 4-13-cv-432-JST

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING REPLY PAGE LIMITS
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00453-JST

1
2
3
4

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-4(b), Plaintiffs in this proceeding (“Plaintiffs”) and
Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) (collectively, the “Parties”), hereby stipulate as follows:
1.

On July 9, 2014, the Court set August 22, 2014 as the deadline for Apple and other

Defendants to submit their Motions to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.

5

2.

6

2014, at 2:00 p.m.

7

3.

8
9
10
11

On July 9, 2014, the Court set a hearing on Motions to Dismiss for December 2,

On August 17, 2014, this Court approved the parties’ stipulation and ordered a 5-

page extension for Apple’s Motion Plaintiffs’ Opposition Memorandum;
4.

Apple filed its Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on August 22,

2014; Plaintiffs filed their Opposition papers on October 10, 2014.
5.

Given the number of claims and issues raised and addressed in Apple’s Motion

12

and in Plaintiffs’ Opposition briefs, Apple now desires a 5-page enlargement of the default 15-

13

page limitation for its Reply Memorandum;

14
15

6.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs have agreed to Apple’s request for a page extension for

its Reply, subject to the approval of the Court;

16

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate that Apple’s Reply Memorandum on its Motion

17

to Dismiss shall not exceed twenty (20) pages in length.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: October 23, 2014

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
Robert B. Hawk
Maren J. Clouse
Jenny Q. Shen
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
4085 Campbell Ave., Suite 100
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Clayton C. James
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1200 Seventeenth Street, Suite 1500
Denver, CO 80202
Tel.: [phone]
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING REPLY PAGE LIMITS
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00453-JST

1

Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

2
3

By: /s/ Robert B. Hawk
Robert B. Hawk

4

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT APPLE INC

5
Dated: October 23, 2014

11

KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
James M. Wagstaffe (95535)
Michael von Loewenfeldt (178665)
Michael Ng (237915)
KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
101 Mission Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12

By: /s/ Michael Ng
Michael Ng

13

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

14

18

David M. Given
Nicholas A. Carlin
PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE & GIVEN LLP
50 California Street, 32nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

19

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

20

23

Carl F. Schwenker (admitted pro hac vice)
LAW OFFICES OF CARL F. SCHWENKER
The Haehnel Building
1101 East 11th Street
Austin, TX 78702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

24

Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel

6
7
8
9
10

15
16
17

21
22

25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING REPLY PAGE LIMITS
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00453-JST

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2
3

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
Apple’s Reply Memorandum on its Motion to Dismiss shall not exceed twenty (20) pages

5

in length

ER

R NIA

Ti ga r

FO

n S.
J u d ge J o

H

12

RT

11

NO

10

LI

9

RED

RDE
____________________________
IS SO O S. Tigar
T
TheIHonorable Jon
United States District Judge

A

8

October 27 , 2014

UNIT
ED

7

Dated:

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

6

S

4

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING REPLY PAGE LIMITS
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00453-JST

1

FILER’S ATTESTATION

2

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), I, Robert B. Hawk, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing

3

of this document has been obtained from the above-listed counsel.

4

Dated: October 23, 2014

5
6
7
8
9

Hogan Lovells US LLP
By: /s/ Robert B. Hawk
Robert B. Hawk
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
4085 Campbell Ave., Suite 100
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT APPLE INC.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING REPLY PAGE LIMITS
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00453-JST