Stiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 65

Administrative MOTION to Stay, filed by AT&T Mobility LLC. (Falk, Donald) (Filed on 3/24/2008) Modified on 3/25/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/28/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Stiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Doc. 65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DONALD M. FALK (SBN 150256) [e-mail] RENA CHNG (SBN 209665) [e-mail] MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] VICTORIA R. COLLADO (pro hac vice) [e-mail] SARAH E. REYNOLDS (pro hac vice) [e-mail] MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant AT&T MOBILITY LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ZOLTAN STIENER and YNEZ STIENER, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: C 07-04486 SBA DEFENDANT AT&T MOBILITY LLC'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL Date: March 24, 2008 Honorable Saundra B. Armstrong Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-3, and 7-11, Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("ATTM") hereby moves this Court for an administrative stay of all proceedings related to ATTM until the Court has resolved ATTM's motion for a stay pending its appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the denial of ATTM's motion to compel arbitration. In particular, ATTM's stay request includes its obligations under the Court's scheduling order, discovery obligations, the Case Management Conference currently scheduled for April 24, 2008, and the April 22, 2008 deadline to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' complaint. A brief administrative stay is
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL CASE NO. CV 07-04486 SBA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

necessary for the same reasons that led this Court to grant a prior administrative stay pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration (see Docket No. 41): The plaintiffs will suffer no prejudice from a brief delay, while ATTM will suffer irreparable harm if forced to proceed with litigation of this case while the Court considers whether to grant ATTM's motion for a stay pending appeal.1 An interim stay is necessary in light of several rapidly approaching deadlines that would require ATTM to participate in discovery and case management-related matters notwithstanding the pendency of its appeal. Indeed, under the Court's order denying ATTM's motion to compel arbitration, the parties must hold a Rule 26(f) discovery conference by March 27, 2008 and must submit a Joint Case Management Statement by April 3, 2008. Yet under the 35-day notice requirement of Civil Local Rule 7-2(a), ATTM's motion for a stay pending appeal cannot be heard until after these deadlines have passed. Thus, without a brief administrative stay, the parties will be forced to expend time and resources conferring about and formulating a discovery plan that would be rendered obsolete were this Court to grant a stay pending appeal and would be rendered moot were the Ninth Circuit to resolve the appeal in ATTM's favor. Neither the parties nor the Court would benefit from that potential waste of time and effort. The administrative stay that ATTM requests would be limited in duration. In its motion for a stay pending appeal (filed concurrently with this motion), ATTM has sought to notice a hearing for April 29, 2008, which ATTM understands is the Court's earliest available hearing date consistent with Local Rule 7-2(a). To further reduce the length of the requested interim stay, ATTM would be amenable to expediting the briefing schedule for its stay motion and advancing the hearing date.

1

On March 18, 2008, counsel for ATTM conferred with plaintiffs' counsel, requesting that plaintiffs agree to an interim stay of proceedings against ATTM pending this Court's resolution of ATTM's motion for a stay pending appeal. Plaintiffs were unwilling to agree to the requested interim stay. See Declaration of Rena Chng ¶ 3.
-2ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL CASE NO. CV 07-04486 SBA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should issue an administrative stay of all proceedings related to ATTM until the Court has resolved ATTM's motion for a stay pending appeal.

DATED: March 24, 2008

MAYER BROWN LLP By: /s/ Donald M. Falk_____ Donald M. Falk

Of Counsel: Evan M. Tager Archis A. Parasharami MAYER BROWN LLP 1909 K Street NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

Donald M. Falk (SBN 150256) Rena Chng (SBN 209665) MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Victoria R. Collado (pro hac vice) Sarah E. Reynolds (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant AT&T MOBILITY LLC

-3ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL CASE NO. CV 07-04486 SBA