Pimental v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 65

Request for Judicial Notice re 64 MOTION to Stay Litigation Based on Recently Filed FCC Petition filed byGoogle, Inc., Slide, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Related document(s) 64 ) (Reiten, Joshua) (Filed on 3/26/2012)

1
2
3
4

PERKINS COIE LLP
BOBBIE J. WILSON (Bar No. 148317)
JOSHUA A. REITEN (Bar No. 238985)
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111-4131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9

DEBRA R. BERNARD (Pro hac vice)
131 S. Dearborn St. Suite 1700
Chicago, Il 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
GOOGLE INC. and SLIDE, INC.

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

OAKLAND DIVISION

14
15
16

NICOLE PIMENTAL and JESSICA
FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

17
18
19

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 11-cv-02585-YGR
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY LITIGATION

v.
GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation,
and SLIDE, INC., a Delaware corporation,

20
Defendants.
21
22

This Document Relates to All Actions.

23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION TO STAY
Case No. 11-cv-02585-YGR

1

Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Defendants Google Inc. and Slide,

2

Inc. respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of the documents identified below,

3

which are attached as exhibits for the Court’s convenience. Each of these documents is properly

4

judicially noticeable. See, e.g., Moore v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 2010 WL 3619877, *3

5

(N.D. Cal. 2010) (taking judicial notice of published FCC decisions, orders and policy

6

statements); Green v. T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., 2008 WL 351017, *2 (W.D. Wa. 2008) (taking

7

judicial notice of comments and petitions filed with the FCC).

8
Exhibit

Description

9
1

First Amended Class Action Complaint, Glauser v. Twilio, Inc., et
al., 11-cv-2584-PJH (N.D. Cal. September 15, 2011)

2

Report and Order, In the Matter of Rules & Regulations
Implementing The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG
Docket No. 02-278 (February 15, 2012)

3

GroupMe, Inc.’s Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling and
Clarification, In the Matter of GroupMe, Inc. Petition for
Declaratory Ruling, CG Docket No. 02-278 (March 1, 2012)

4

GroupMe, Inc.’s Notice of Ex Parte Presentation, In the Matter of
Rules & Regulations Implementing The Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278 (March 13, 2012)

5

Report and Order, In the matter of Rules and Regulation
Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18
F.C.C.R. 14014, 2003 WL 21517853 (July 3, 2003)

6

Report and Order, In the Matter of Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 7
F.C.C.R. 8752, 1992 WL 690928 (September 17, 1992)

7

Order, Glauser v. Twilio, Inc., et al., 11-cv-2584-PJH (N.D. Cal.
March 15, 2012)

DATED: March 26, 2012

10

PERKINS COIE LLP

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

By: /s/ Joshua A. Reiten
JOSHUA A. REITEN
Attorneys for Defendants
GOOGLE INC. and SLIDE, INC.

28
-1REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION TO STAY
Case No. 11-cv-02585-YGR