Stiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 67

Proposed Order re 65 Motion to Stay by AT&T Mobility LLC. (Falk, Donald) (Filed on 3/24/2008) Modified on 3/25/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Stiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Doc. 67

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 [PROPOSED] ORDER

Before the Court is defendant AT&T Mobility LLC's ("ATTM") administrative motion to stay its obligations under the scheduling order currently in effect, pending resolution of ATTM's motion to stay these proceedings during the appeal of this Court's denial of ATTM's motion to compel arbitration. For the reasons that follow, the administrative stay motion is GRANTED. Background In June 2007, plaintiffs Zoltan and Ynez Stiener purchased two iPhones. In August 2007, the Stieners filed this putative class action against Apple Computer, Inc ("Apple") and ATTM.
[PROPOSED] ORDER 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

See Docket No. 1. They allege that defendants violated California consumer-protection statutes and a variety of common-law doctrines by "failing to inform a nationwide group of initial purchasers of the iPhone cellular telephone that fees of over $100 would be required to replace the iPhone battery and maintain service while the battery was being replaced." Docket No. 1 (Compl. ¶ 1). The plaintiffs maintain that Apple and ATTM failed to disclose adequately the details of the iPhone battery-replacement program, thus violating California's Unfair Competition Law, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et seq. (Compl. ¶¶ 58-59) and breaching an implied warranty of merchantibility, CAL. COMM. CODE § 2314 (Compl. ¶¶ 49-52). Plaintiffs also allege breach of contract (Compl. ¶¶ 45-48) and fraudulent concealment (Compl. ¶¶ 53-57). They seek to represent a class consisting of "all individuals or entities who at any time from June 29, 2007 to the date of judgment in this action bought and implemented the iPhone and sustained damages as a result." Compl. ¶ 32. To use their iPhones with defendant ATTM's wireless service, the Stieners were required to activate them online and agree to the Terms of Service, which contain an arbitration provision. On November 21, 2007, ATTM filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16. Docket No. 38. On March 12, 2008, this Court denied the motion. Docket No. 59. On March 17, 2008, ATTM filed a notice of appeal from the denial of that motion. Docket No. 60. ATTM also moved to stay these proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal, and now requests an administrative stay until this Court has resolved the latter motion. Analysis ATTM's motion for an administrative stay is well-taken. 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 before the Court has resolved its motion for a stay pending appeal. Accordingly, in the interests of conserving the resources of the parties, a short stay of the parties' scheduling obligations and of discovery pending the determination of the motion for stay pending appeal is prudent.
-2[PROPOSED] ORDER 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
________________________ Date

Conclusion ATTM's motion for an administrative stay is GRANTED. The pretrial obligations

imposed by the Court's March 12, 2008 order, Docket No. 59, are STAYED pending the resolution of ATTM's motion for stay pending appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________________ Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge

-3[PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. CV 07-04486 SBA