Dudley v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 46

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 45 Stipulation to Extend Deadline for Settlement Conference.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
STEVEN G. TIDRICK, SBN 224760
2039 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 308
Berkeley, California 94704
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Individual and Representative
Plaintiff Mary Dudley

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MARY DUDLEY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated,

11
12
13
14
15

Civil Case Number: 3:14-cv-01802

Plaintiffs,

CLASS ACTION

v.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, Inc.;
METROPCS WIRELESS, Inc.; T-MOBILE
US, Inc.; and Does 1-100,

Complaint filed: January 17, 2014

Defendants.

Amended complaint filed: March 4, 2014

16

Trial Date: Not Set

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Dudley v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., 3:14-cv-01802

1

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2014, the Court entered an order stating, in relevant

2

part: “The parties are ordered to participate in a settlement conference to be conducted by

3

Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero within 90 days, or as is convenient to his calendar.”

4

(Docket No. 36);

5

WHEREAS, the parties through counsel advised Judge Spero’s courtroom deputy on

6

October 7, 2014 that December 10, 2014 was available for setting the Settlement Conference

7

in this matter;

8
9
10

WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, Judge Spero entered an order setting a Settlement
Conference for December 10, 2014 (Docket No. 37);.
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Court entered a Case Management Order

11

(Docket Nos. 40), approving with modifications the parties’ stipulated briefing and hearing

12

schedule on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”);

13

and Defendant’s Motion to Strike the putative class allegations in Plaintiff’s SAC’

14

WHEREAS, by the October 31, 2014 deadline set forth in the Court’s Case

15

Management Order, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended

16

Complaint; and their Motion to Strike the Class Allegations therein, on the grounds of lack of

17

numerosity (Docket Nos. 42 and 43);

18
19
20
21
22

WHEREAS, Defendants supported their Motion to Strike with the Declaration of
Hope Norris (“Norris Decl.”) (Docket No. 43-1);
WHEREAS Defendants have otherwise responded to Plaintiff’s initial written
discovery;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has recently served or intends to serve additional discovery

23

regarding the matters stated in the Norris Declaration, including deposition notices and written

24

discovery;

25

WHEREAS, the parties are the process of meeting-and-conferring regarding Plaintiff’s

26

additional discovery, keeping in mind the following statement in the Court’s order of August

27

8, 2014: “[D]iscovery may go forward at this time on the breach of contract claim, as well as on

28

class certification. However, because Dudley has made no showing that she could proceed on
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Dudley v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., 3:14-cv-01802

1

behalf of customers who did not opt out of the arbitration agreement, she is not entitled to

2

discovery about those customers at this stage, with the possible exception of limited, reasonable

3

discovery designed to explore whether all customers who properly sought to opt out of the

4

arbitration agreement were determined by the defendants to have successfully opted out.” (Docket

5

No. 33);

WHEREAS, Plaintiff believes that her further discovery will maximize the

6
7

productivity of an early settlement conference, but the depositions and responses to such

8

discovery will not occur before the current date of the Settlement Conference of December 10,

9

2014;
WHEREAS, Defendants have only recently received Plaintiff’s proposed discovery,

10
11

but are reviewing same and reserve all rights pending that review;
WHEREAS, Defendants remain prepared to participate in full at the Settlement

12
13

Conference as originally scheduled for December 10, 2014;
WHEREAS, Defendants also recognize that the Settlement Conference may not be

14
15

productive given Plaintiff’s views that the Settlement Conference should proceed only after

16

further written discovery and one or more depositions;
WHEREAS, Judge Spero and the parties are available for a settlement conference on

17
18

January 26, 2015.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties through their respective

19
20

counsel as follows:
1.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The deadline for the settlement conference shall be continued until January 27,

2.

21

The deadlines set forth in the Court’s Case Management Order (Docket No. 40)

2015.

shall remain unchanged.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: December 2, 2014

THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
/s/ Steven G. Tidrick
__________________________
STEVEN G. TIDRICK
3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Dudley v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., 3:14-cv-01802

Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARY DUDLEY

1
Dated: December 2, 2014

/s/ Michael J. Stortz
__________________________
Attorneys for Defendants
METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
METROPCS WIRELESS, INC.; and
T-MOBILE US, INC

4
5
6

ED
ORDER
HON. VINCESO
IT IS CHHABRIA

December 3, 2014
Dated: _____________

R NIA

10

UNIT
ED

9

T

RT
U
O

S

8

ISTRIC
TC

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. TES D
A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

NO

12

RT

13

ince C
J u d ge V

ER

H

14
15

hhabr ia

FO

7

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP

LI

3

A

2

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Dudley v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., 3:14-cv-01802

Attestation Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), I, Steven G. Tidrick, hereby attest that I have obtained
concurrence in the filing of this document from the other signatory to this document.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 2nd
day of December, 2014.
___/s/ Steven G. Tidrick________________
STEVEN G. TIDRICK
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARY DUDLEY

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Dudley v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., 3:14-cv-01802