Walintukan v. SBE Entertainment Group, LLC et al

Filing 63

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 62 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Setting Summary-Judgment/Adjudication Briefing and Hearing Schedule filed by Deric Walintukan. Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 5, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Lionel Z. Glancy (SBN 134180)
Marc L. Godino (SBN 182689)
Mark S. Greenstone (SBN 199606)
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
Michael J. Jaurigue (SBN 208123)
Abigail A. Zelenski (SBN 228610)
David Zelenski (SBN 231768)
114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
Glendale, California 91203
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Deric Walintukan

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

DERIC WALINTUKAN, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff,
v.
SBE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, a
California limited liability company; 6021
HOLLYWOOD INVESTOR, LLC, a California
limited liability company; 6021 HOLLYWOOD
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and SPOONFUL
MANAGEMENT LLC, a California limited
liability company,

Case No. 3:16-CV-01311-JST
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
SETTING SUMMARY-JUDGMENT/
ADJUDICATION BRIEFING AND
HEARING SCHEDULE
Assigned to Hon. Jon S. Tigar

Defendants.

26
27
28

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING HEARING & BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case No. 16-cv-01311

1

Plaintiff Deric Walintukan, on the one hand, and Defendants SBE Entertainment Group, LLC

2

(“SBE”); 6021 Hollywood Investor, LLC (“6021 HI”); 6021 Hollywood Operating Company, LLC

3

(“6021 HOC”); and Spoonful Management LLC (“Spoonful”), on the other hand, submit this Stipulation

4

establishing a briefing and hearing schedule for their contemplated summary-judgment motion practice

5

in the above-captioned action. The Stipulation is based on the following facts:

6
7
8
9

1.

This action concerns a putative class-wide claim brought under the Telephone Consumer

Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, for text messages allegedly sent without proper consent.
2.

On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff, on the one hand, and SBE, 6021 HI, and 6021 HOC filed

a Joint Case Management Statement, wherein Plaintiff represented that he had identified a new party

10

through discovery—Spoonful—that he intended to add as a defendant. (Further Joint Case Mgmt.

11

Statement [ECF 39] at 2:16–17, 6:21–24.) The Joint Case Management Statement also advised that,

12

during discovery, Plaintiff, SBE, 6021 HI, and 6021 HOC had identified a threshold issue directed to

13

proper consent under the TCPA that they believed, in the interest of judicial economy, should be

14

resolved by way of cross-motions for summary judgment, in advance of hearing Plaintiff’s motion for

15

class certification. (Further Joint Case Mgmt. Statement at 3:10–23, 7:1–19.)

16

3.

On October 20, 2016, the Court entered an Order setting a briefing schedule for

17

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. (Order Setting Briefing Schedule & Hearing on Pl.’s Mot. to

18

Amend [ECF 41] at 1:13–19.) That Order also vacated the filing deadline for Plaintiff’s class-

19

certification motion—March 23, 2017—so that the parties could file cross-motions for summary

20

judgment. (See Order Setting Briefing Schedule & Hearing on Pl.’s Mot. to Amend at 1:21–23.)

21

4.

On February 15, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. (See

22

generally Order Granting Mot. for Leave to File First Am. Compl. [ECF 52].) Plaintiff timely filed his

23

First Amended Complaint on February 16, 2017 (see generally First Am. Class-Action Compl. [ECF

24

53]), and SBE, 6021 HI, 6021 HOC, and Spoonful timely filed Answers thereto on March 10, 2017 (see

25

generally Defs.’ Answers to First Am. Compl. [ECF 58–61]).

26

6.

In the continued interest of judicial economy, Plaintiff and Defendants believe that a

27

briefing and hearing schedule should be set for their contemplated summary-judgment motion practice.

28

In order to properly brief the identified threshold issue, the parties need to resolve certain matters
1
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING HEARING & BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case No. 16-cv-01311

1

surrounding written discovery responses, as well as to schedule various depositions (including a likely

2

third-party deposition). In addition, Defendants’ counsel have indicated that they will be engaged in a

3

three-week jury trial in August 2017, and Plaintiff’s counsel will be engaged in a trial starting on

4

September 12, 2017. In light of these scheduling matters, the parties propose the following schedule:

5

•

6

September 29, 2017: Opening summary-judgment/adjudication moving papers
due.

7

•

October 31, 2017: Opposition summary-judgment/adjudication papers due.

8

•

November 20, 2017: Reply summary-judgment/adjudication papers due.

9

•

December 7, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. or such other date selected by the Court:

10

Summary-judgment/adjudication hearing.

11
12

7.

Trial in this action has not been set.

/////

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING HEARING & BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case No. 16-cv-01311

1

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that:

2

1.

Opening summary-judgment/adjudication moving papers are due by September 29, 2017.

3

2.

Opposition summary-judgment/adjudication papers are due by October 31, 2017.

4

3.

Reply summary-judgment/adjudication papers are due by November 20, 2017.

5

4.

The summary-judgment/adjudication hearing shall take place at 2:00 p.m. on December

6

7, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. or such other date selected by the Court.

7

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

8
9

Dated: March 31, 2017

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY
JAURIGUE LAW GROUP

10

David Zelenski 1
Lionel Z. Glancy
Marc L. Godino
Mark S. Greenstone
Michael J. Jaurigue
Abigail A. Zelenski
David Zelenski
Attorneys for Plaintiff

11
12
13
14
15
16

Dated: March 31, 2017

VENABLE LLP
/s/ Ari Rothman
Ari A. Rothman
Witt W. Chang
Attorneys for Defendants

17
18
19
20

*

*

*

21
22

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: April 5, 2017

Hon. Jon S. Tigar
U.S. District Court Judge

25
26
27
28

1

Pursuant to rule 5-1 of the Northern District of California’s Local Rules, I hereby attest that
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the signatories below.
3
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING HEARING & BRIEFING SCHEDULE – Case No. 16-cv-01311