Blanchard et al v. Fluent, Inc et al

Filing 20

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS' DEADLINE TO RESPONSE TO FLUENT'S ANSWER. Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Rule 12(e) and/or Rule 12(f) Motion as to Fluent's answer is continued to 21 days after the Court rules on federal jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 04/11/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2017)

1
2
3
4

Jacob Harker (State Bar No. 261262)
LAW OFFICES OF JACOB HARKER
582 Market Street, Suite 1007
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

8

Daniel L. Balsam (State Bar No. 260423)
THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM
2601C Blanding Avenue #271
Alameda, CA 94501
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

5
6
7

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)
12
MIRA BLANCHARD et al,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
FLUENT INC. et al,
16
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.

3:17-cv-01551-MMC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS’
DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO FLUENT’S
ANSWER

17
BACKGROUND / BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

18

On September 16, 2016, Plaintiffs Mira Blanchard et al filed – but did not serve – a
19
lawsuit against Fluent Inc., Reward Zone USA LLC, RewardsFlow LLC, American Prize Center
20
LLC, and Mohit Singla (collectively “Fluent”) and other Defendants in the Superior Court of
21
California, County of San Francisco for violations of Cal. Business & Professions Code
22
§ 17529.5. On December 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amendment Complaint and served
23
Fluent thereafter.
24

1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING
PLAINTIFFS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO FLUENT’S ANSWER (3:17-CV-01551-MMC)

On March 22, 2017, Fluent timely removed the Action to the U.S. District Court for the

1
2

Northern District of California (Docket #1). On March 29, 2017, Fluent filed an Answer

3

(Docket #15).
Also on March 29, 2017, Defendant Sauphtware Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC

4
5

(Docket #14).
On April 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the Action on substantive and

6
7

procedural grounds (Docket #16). On April 4, 2017, this Court issued its own Order Directing

8

Fluent to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Remanded [and] Continuing Hearing on

9

Sauphtware Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #18).

10

On April 3, 2017, in light of the Court’s signaling that it did not want to consider

11

Sauphtware’s Motion to Dismiss until first resolving the question of federal jurisdiction, and in

12

the interest of reducing the burden on all parties and the Court, Plaintiffs asked Fluent to agree to

13

continue their deadline to file a Rule 12(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement and/or Rule

14

12(f) Motion to Strike as to Fluent’s Answer until 21 days after this Court rules on federal

15

jurisdiction. On April 10, 2017, Fluent agreed to Plaintiffs’ request.

16

//

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING
PLAINTIFFS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO FLUENT’S ANSWER (3:17-CV-01551-MMC)

1
2
3
4

STIPULATION
Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a Rule 12(e) and/or Rule 12(f) Motion as to Fluent’s Answer is
continued to 21 days after this Court rules on federal jurisdiction (if this Court finds federal
jurisdiction).
THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM

5

/s/ Daniel L. Balsam
Daniel L. Balsam
Attorney for Plaintiffs

6
7
8

GORDON & REES LLP

9

/s/ Andrew D. Castricone
Andrew D. Castricone
Attorney for Fluent Defendants

10
11
12
13
14
15

THE FOREGOING STIPULATION IS APPROVED AND IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 11, 2017
Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
U.S. District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING
PLAINTIFFS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO FLUENT’S ANSWER (3:17-CV-01551-MMC)