Rearden LLC et al v. Paramount Pictures Corporation et al

Filing 20

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 14 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER (Joint) Regarding Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, to Stay filed by Paramount Home Entertainment Distribution Inc, Paramount Pictures Corporation Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 15, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2017)

Download PDF
1 STEVE W. BERMAN (pro hac vice) steve@hbsslaw.com 2 MARK S. CARLSON (pro hac vice) markc@hbsslaw.com 3 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 4 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 5 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 6 7 RIO S. PIERCE (SBN 298297) riop@hbsslaw.com 8 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 9 Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 (510) 725-3001 10 Facsimile: KELLY M. KLAUS (SBN 161091) kelly.klaus@mto.com ROHIT K. SINGLA (SBN 213057) rohit.singla@mto.com ELIA HERRERA (SBN 293278) elia.herrera@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs GLENN D. POMERANTZ (SBN 112503) glenn.pomerantz@mto.com JOHN L. SCHWAB (SBN 301386) john.schwab@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 12 Attorneys for Defendants 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 17 REARDEN LLC and REARDEN MOVA LLC, 18 Plaintiffs, 19 vs. 20 PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION 21 and PARAMOUNT HOME ENTERTAINMENT DISTRIBUTION INC., 22 Defendants. 23 Case No. 3:17-cv-04192-JST JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6) OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO STAY Judge: Hon. Jon S. Tigar 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04192- JST 1 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiffs Rearden LLC and Rearden MOVA LLC (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants 3 Paramount Pictures Corporation and Paramount Home Entertainment Distribution Inc. 4 (“Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows: 5 WHEREAS, on July 24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants (Dkt. 1) 6 and Defendants were all served by July 31, 2017; 7 WHEREAS, by joint stipulation, the parties agreed that Defendants’ deadline to answer or 8 otherwise respond to the complaint would be extended to and including September 15, 2017 (Dkt. 9 13); 10 WHEREAS, on July 31, 2017, this Court found that the above-captioned case (Rearden v. 11 Paramount) is related to the following cases, which are now pending before this court (Dkt. 10): 12 • Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology v. Rearden LLC, No.15-cv00797-JST (SHST v. Rearden) 13 14 • Rearden LLC v. The Walt Disney Co., No. 17-cv-04006-JST (Rearden v. Disney) 15 • Rearden LLC v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., No. 17-cv-04187-JST (Rearden v. Crystal Dynamics) 16 17 18 19 • Rearden LLC v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., No. 17-cv-04191-JST (Rearden v. Fox) WHEREAS, the Defendants in Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. Fox, and Rearden v. 20 Paramount all intend to file motions to dismiss the complaints pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 12(b)(6), or, alternatively, to stay proceedings in those cases in the event the Court certifies the 22 requested entry of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) in SHST v. Rearden and also grants 23 Virtual Global Holdings Limited’s forthcoming motion to stay proceedings in that case pending 24 the disposition of an immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b); 25 WHEREAS, the Defendants in Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. Fox, and Rearden v. 26 Paramount are represented by the same counsel and will be making similar arguments in support 27 of their dismissal motions on common issues; 28 -1JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04192- JST 1 WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs and for the Defendants in Rearden v. Disney, Rearden 2 v. Fox, and Rearden v. Paramount have met and conferred regarding the most efficient way to file 3 documents related to Defendants’ upcoming motions to dismiss and have agreed upon the 4 following procedure: 5 • Defendants in Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. Fox, and Rearden v. Paramount will 6 file the same consolidated Motion to Dismiss or Stay and supporting papers in all 7 three cases; 8 • 9 10 three cases; • Defendants will file the same consolidated Reply and supporting papers in all three cases; and 11 12 Plaintiffs will file the same consolidated Opposition and supporting papers in all • Defendants’ consolidated Motion to Dismiss or Stay will be within the applicable 13 page and other limitations of this Court’s Local Rules. Plaintiffs and Defendants 14 presently intend for their consolidated Opposition and Reply papers, respectively, 15 to be within the same limitations. This stipulation does not preclude either side 16 from seeking an extension of those limitations, either by stipulation or Order based 17 on good cause. 18 WHEREAS, the purpose of the foregoing procedure is to ensure that the Court and 19 opposing counsel will need to review only one set of briefing papers in dealing with these Motions 20 while preserving the record of each set of filings concerning the Motions in each of the respective 21 case dockets; 22 WHEREAS, the parties further agree that if Defendants file their Rule 12(b)(6) motions 23 on September 15, 2017, Plaintiffs’ responsive brief and supporting materials will be due on 24 October 16, 2017, Defendants’ reply brief and supporting materials will be due on November 2, 25 2017; and Defendants will notice the Motions for hearing on November 16, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.; 26 WHEREAS, the parties will confer with one another and the Courtroom Deputy regarding 27 a procedure to propose to the Court in the Joint Case Management Statement regarding the 28 -2JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04192- JST 1 coordination of all of the related cases so that parties may file documents in only one master 2 docket; 3 WHEREAS, the Defendants in Rearden v. Crystal Dynamics are not represented by 4 counsel for the Defendants in Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. Fox, and Rearden v. Paramount, and 5 therefore any motion directed to the pleading that Defendants in Rearden v. Crystal Dynamics will 6 not present the need for a single consolidated brief; nevertheless, to ensure a coordinated briefing 7 schedule and the need for the Court to consider and hear all motions directed to the pleadings at 8 the same time, Plaintiffs will agree that briefing on any motion filed by the parties to Rearden v. 9 Crystal Dynamics shall take place according to the same time and page-limit schedule set forth 10 above; 11 NOW THEREFORE, for good cause, the parties in the Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. 12 Fox, and Rearden v. Paramount cases stipulate that the documents relevant to Defendants’ 13 motions to dismiss the complaints and Plaintiffs’ responsive brief in these cases will be filed 14 pursuant to the procedure and deadlines set forth above. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04192- JST 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 2 DATED: September14, 2017 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 3 4 By: 5 /s/ Mark S. Carlson MARK S. CARLSON 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 DATED: September 14, 2017 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 9 10 11 By: /s/ Kelly M. Klaus KELLY M. KLAUS 12 13 Attorneys for Defendants 14 15 16 17 18 CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1 ATTESTATION I, Kelly M. Klaus, am the ECF user whose credentials were utilized in the electronic filing 19 of this document. In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Mark S. 20 Carlson concurred in the filing of this document. 21 /s/ Kelly M. Klaus Kelly M. Klaus 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04192- JST 1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 September 15 3 DATED: _______________, 2017 4 5 6 The Honorable Jon S. Tigar 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:17-CV-04192- JST

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?