Stiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 83

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG DENY as moot 65 Motion to Stay; DENY as moot 72 Motion for Leave to File (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2008)

Stiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al

Doc. 83

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ZOLTAN STEINER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants. No. C 07-04486 SBA ORDER [Docket Nos. 65, 72]

On November 21, 2007, defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC ("AT&T") filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss Claims Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. [Docket No. 38.] On March 12, 2008, the Court denied this motion and set dates for ADR tasks and a case management conference. See Docket No. 59. On March 18, 2008, AT&T appealed the Court's denial of its motion to compel. See Docket No. 60. Then, on March 24, 2008, AT&T filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal [Docket No. 63]. A hearing is set on this motion for April 29, 2008. On March 24, 2008, AT&T filed an Administrative Motion to Stay (the "Motion to Stay") its discovery obligations, under the Court's March 12, 2008 Order, through the April 29, 2008 hearing. See Docket No. 65. On March 28, 2008, after plaintiffs had filed an opposition to this administrative motion, AT&T filed a Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Administrative Motion to Stay (the "Motion for Leave") [Docket No. 72]. Subsequently, the parties filed a Stipulation to Continue Initial Case Management Conference [Docket No. 80], which addressed the concerns raised in AT&T's Motion to Stay, and which the /// /// /// ///

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

/// Court approved, see Docket No. 82. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion to Stay and the Motion for Leave as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 23, 2008

_________________________________ Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge

2