Huricks et al v. Shopkick, Inc.

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 24, 2014. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

ZAK HURICKS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY

v.

13
14

No. C-14-2464 MMC

SHOPKICK, INC.,
Defendant.

15

/

16
Before the Court is defendant Shopkick, Inc.’s (“Shopkick”) “Motion to Disqualify

17
18

Plaintiffs’ Counsel,” filed June 19, 2014. Plaintiffs Zak Huricks and Trista Robinson have

19

filed opposition, to which Shopkick has replied. Having read and considered the papers

20

filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1

21

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that Shopkick sent them text messages in a

22

manner that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and seek to proceed both on

23

their own behalf and on behalf of a class. By the instant motion, Shopkick argues that

24

plaintiffs’ counsel should be disqualified from acting as counsel on behalf of the putative

25

class, due to circumstances that, according to Shopkick, raise the appearance of a conflict

26

between plaintiffs’ counsel and the putative class.

27

//

28
1

By order filed July 22, 2014, the Court took the matter under submission.

1

By order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has dismissed the complaint for

2

failure to state a claim, and has afforded plaintiffs leave to amend. Consequently, no

3

claims on behalf of the putative class are presently pending before the Court.

4

Accordingly, Shopkick’s motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice as premature.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: July 24, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2