Stiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 72

MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Administrative Motion to Stay filed by AT&T Mobility LLC. Motion Hearing set for 4/29/2008 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Falk, Donald) (Filed on 3/28/2008) Modified on 3/31/2008 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Stiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Doc. 72

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 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND ACCOMPANYING REPLY Date: March 28, 2008 Honorable Saundra B. Armstrong Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3(d), Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("ATTM") respectfully requests leave to file the accompanying reply in support of ATTM's administrative motion for an interim stay of these proceedings.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND ACCOMPANYING REPLY, 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

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS In opposing our administrative motion for an interim stay, Plaintiffs chiefly attack the merits of our broader motion for a stay pending appeal. As we will show in our reply brief in support of that motion, they cite the wrong standard for stays pending appeal from orders denying arbitration motions; indeed, they completely ignore Britton v. Co-Op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1990), which sets forth the standard in the Ninth Circuit. See ATTM Motion For Stay Pending Appeal (Docket No. 63) at 4­5 (discussing Britton). Here, we seek leave to make only two brief points regarding the request for an interim stay. First, Plaintiffs identify no harm to them that might result from a short stay in the few weeks necessary to resolve the underlying motion for a stay pending appeal. Second, Plaintiffs assert (at page 4) that a stay should not be granted because their claims against Defendant Apple, Inc. (which are not subject to arbitration) might be litigated on a different track than their claims against ATTM. But Plaintiffs offer no reason to assume that the pace of proceedings against ATTM and Apple could not be harmonized later if ATTM's arbitration agreement were not enforced on appeal. More important, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, the policy of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1­16, favoring arbitration rights outweighs any "fortuitous impact * * * on efficient [judicial] dispute resolution." Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 221 (1985). When a case includes "other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement," the FAA "requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement." Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 20 (1983) (emphasis added). Just this week the Supreme Court reiterated that "the inefficiency and difficulty of conducting simultaneous arbitration and federal-court litigation [is] not a good enough reason to defer the arbitration." Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., __ U.S. __, 2008 WL 762537, at *7 (U.S. Mar. 25, 2008)) (citing Byrd). Because arbitration rights under the FAA must be "rigorously enforce[d] * * *, even if the result is `piecemeal' litigation" (Byrd, 470 U.S. at 221), Plaintiffs' argument has no merit.
-2MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND ACCOMPANYING REPLY, 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 a stay of all proceedings related to ATTM until the Court has resolved ATTM's motion for a stay pending appeal.

DATED: March 28, 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

-3MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND ACCOMPANYING REPLY, CASE NO. CV 07-04486 SBA