Blanchard et al v. Fluent, Inc et al

Filing 22

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING RESPONSE DATE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE/MOTION TO REMAND AND CONTINUING HEARING TO JUNE 2, 2017. Fluent's opposition shall be filed no later than May 8, 2017, and plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed no later than May 15, 2017. The hearing on plaintiffs' motion to remand is continued from May 12, 2017, to June 2, 2017. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 04/14/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

ANDREW D. CASTRICONE
[e-mail]
Gordon & Rees LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants FLUENT, LLC
served and f/k/a FLUENT, INC.; REWARD ZONE
USA, LLC; REWARDSFLOW LLC; AMERICAN PRIZE
CENTER, LLC; and MOHIT SINGLA

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

10

MIRA BLANCHARD et al,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.
FLUENT INC. et al,
Defendants.

) Case No.
3:17-cv-01551-MMC
)
) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
) ORDER CONTINUING RESPONSE
) DATE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE /
) AND MOTION TO REMAND AND
)CONTINUING HEARING TO JUNE 2, 2017
)
)

15
16
17

BACKGROUND / BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 16, 2016, Plaintiffs Mira Blanchard et al filed – but did not serve – a

18
lawsuit against Fluent LLC, served and f/k/a Fluent Inc., Reward Zone USA LLC, RewardsFlow
19
LLC, American Prize Center LLC, and Monit Singla (collectively “Fluent”) and other
20
Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco for violations of Cal.
21
22
1

23
24

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order
Continuing Response to OSC and
Opposition to Motion to Remand

Case No. 17-cv-01551 MMC

1

Business & Professions Code § 17529.5. On December 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First

2

Amendment Complaint and served Fluent thereafter.

3

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

4

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

5

(Docket #15).

6
7
8
9

Also on March 29, 2017, Defendant Sauphtware Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC
(Docket #14).
On April 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the Action on substantive and
procedural grounds (Docket #16). On April 4, 2017, this Court issued its own Order Directing

10

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

11

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

12

With respect to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Fluent is diligently investigating the

13

citizenship of the defendants who are not within the collective definition of Fluent, or defendants

14

Sauphtware to fully respond to the Court’s Order. Unfortunately, the investigation is taking

15

longer than anticipated, and additional time is needed.

16

On April 14, 2017, Fluent’s counsel and plaintiffs’ counsel agreed that an additional three

17

weeks was appropriate and reasonable given the number of defendants involved, as well as

18

plaintiffs’ own efforts in alleging citizenship. Since the Order to Show Cause essentially

19

subsumes some of the points in the pending Motion to Remand, it was agreed that it would be

20

appropriate to request that the response to the Order to Show Cause, Opposition to the Motion to

21

Remand, and Hearing on the Motion to Remand, all be continued for three weeks.

22
2

23
24

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order
Continuing Response to OSC and
Opposition to Motion to Remand

Case No. 17-cv-01551 MMC

1
2
3
4
5
6

STIPULATION
Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to a three week
continuance of the deadlines and motion hearing date. Fluent’s Opposition to the Motion to
Remand and Response to the Order to Show Cause, presently due on April 17, 2017 will now be
due to be filed no later than May 8, 2017. The hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to remand will be
continued from May 12, 2017 to June 2, 2017, or the next available date for the Court.
THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BALSAM

7

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

8
9

GORDON & REES LLP

10
11

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

12
13
14
15

ATTESTATION
In accordance with Civ.L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from the other signatory.
/s/ Andrew D. Castricone
Andrew D. Castricone

16
17
18

PROPOSED ORDER

19
20
21
22

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. It is further ordered that plaintiffs'
reply, if any, shall be filed no later than May 15, 2017.
Dated: April 14, 2017
_____________
______________________________
Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
United States District Court Judge
3

23
24

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order
Continuing Response to OSC and
Opposition to Motion to Remand

Case No. 17-cv-01551 MMC