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)

Download PDF
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

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?