Yuncker v. Pandora Media, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER Granting 23 Stipulation on scheduling of Motions and Response to Complaint. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/2/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

FRANCIS M. GREGOREK (144785)
[e-mail]
BETSY C. MANIFOLD (182450)
[e-mail]
PATRICK H. MORAN (270881)
[e-mail]
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 619/234-4599

11

JOSEPH J. SIPRUT (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
SIPRUT PC
122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312/427-1850

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

13

LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (CSB NO. 115163)
[e-mail]
TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9

SAN FRANCISCO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

10

14
15
16
17
18

Attorneys for Defendant,
PANDORA MEDIA, INC.

19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22
23

TROY YUNCKER, individually and on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated,

24

Plaintiff,

25
26
27

v.

Case No. CV 11-3113-CW
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER ON SCHEDULING OF
MOTIONS AND RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINT

PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,
Defendant.

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CASE NO. CV- 11-3113-CW

STIPULATION

1
2

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on June 23, 2011;

3

WHEREAS, on July 1, 2011, Pandora filed a Notice of Related Case in Levine v. Google,

4

Civ. No.11-02157, which Plaintiff opposed on July 5, 2011;

5

WHEREAS, on July 25, 2011, the Clerk issued a Notice both in this case and in the

6

Levine case stating that “the Court had reviewed the motion to relate and determined that no cases

7

are related and no reassignments shall occur”;

8
9

WHEREAS, on July 12, 2011, Pandora filed a Notice of Pendency of Related Action in In
Re: Google Inc. Android Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2264 (the “putative

10

Android MDL”), identifying this matter as closely related to the matters listed on the Schedule of

11

Actions in the Android MDL;

SAN FRANCISCO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12
13
14

WHEREAS, on July 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Notice of
Pendency of Related Action in the Android MDL;
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2011, at a hearing of the United States Judicial Panel on

15

Multidistrict Litigation, the Multi District Litigation Panel indicated it would likely entertain

16

further argument about whether to transfer this action into the broader Android MDL; and

17

WHEREAS, the Pandora has notified Plaintiff of its intent to file a motion to stay this

18

matter, pending a ruling on its Notice of Pendency of Related Action in the Android MDL;

19

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties have agreed to the following briefing schedule on

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pandora’s motion to stay and continuing Pandora’s time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint:
Pandora shall file its Motion to Stay this matter by August 4, 2011 and notice the motion
for hearing on September 8, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.;
Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the Motion to Stay by August 18, 2011 and defendant
shall reply, if any, on or before August 25, 2011;
If Pandora’s Motion to Stay is denied, Pandora shall respond to the Complaint within 10
court days of service of the order denying Pandora’s motion.
If Pandora’s Motion to Stay is granted, and this action is subsequently transferred into the
Android MDL, Pandora’s time to respond to the Complaint will be determined by the assigned
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

CASE NO. CV- 11-3113-CW

1

MDL court;
If Pandora’s Motion to Stay is granted and this action is not transferred into the Android

2
3

MDL, Pandora shall respond to the Complaint within ten court days of service of the order

4

denying Pandora’s motion to transfer this matter into the Android MDL.

5

Dated:

July 28, 2011

WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP

6

By: /s/ Betsy Manifold
Betsy Manifold

7
8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Dated:

July 28, 2011

SIPRUT PC

10
By: /s/ Joseph Siprut
Joseph Siprut

11

SAN FRANCISCO

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12
13
Dated:

July 28, 2011

FENWICK & WEST LLP

14
By: /s/ Tyler G. Newby
Tyler G. Newby

15
16

Attorneys for Defendant
PANDORA MEDIA, INC.

17
18
19
20

ORDER

2nd
August
SO ORDERED at Oakland, California this ____ day of ______________, 2011.
Except that motion to stay will be decided on the papers.

21
22

_
Honorable Claudia Wilken
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

2

CASE NO. CV- 11-3113-CW