Yuncker v. Pandora Media, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING DEFENDANTS 25 MOTION TO STAY. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 TROY YUNCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 6 7 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY (Docket No. 25) Plaintiff, v. 8 PANDORA MEDIA, INC., 9 Defendant. 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California No. C 11-03113 CW ________________________________/ 11 12 Plaintiff Troy Yuncker initiated this action on June 23, 13 2011, asserting that Defendant Pandora Media, Inc., violated his 14 rights under federal and California law. 15 Defendant moved another judge in this district to consider whether 16 this action was related to Levine v. Google Inc., Case No. C 11- 17 02157 JSW (N.D. Cal.). 18 not related. 19 On July 1, 2011, The Levine court determined the cases were On August 4, 2011, Defendant moved to stay this action 20 pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 21 Litigation (JPMDL) as to whether this case should be coordinated 22 and centralized with others in In re: Google Android Consumer 23 Privacy Litigation, MDL No. 2264. 24 that the In re: Google cases be centralized in this judicial 25 district before the Levine court. 26 whether this action should be included in the consolidated 27 litigation, indicating that this was a question for the transferee 28 court. Since then, the JPMDL ordered The JPMDL declined to consider On August 15, 2011, Defendant moved the Levine court for 1 leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the decision not to 2 relate this case. 3 Defendant’s motion for leave. 4 reconsideration is set to close September 15, 2011. On August 31, 2011, the Levine court granted Briefing on Defendant’s motion for 5 In light of the events that occurred after it filed its 6 motion to stay, Defendant now seeks a stay of proceedings pending 7 a decision on its motion for reconsideration. 8 Defendant’s motion to stay. 9 Plaintiff opposes Having considered the papers submitted by the parties, the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to stay. 11 Defendant indicates that it intends to move to dismiss Plaintiff’s 12 claims, irrespective of how its motion for reconsideration is 13 decided. 14 impending motion to dismiss. 15 (Docket No. 25.) There is no reason to stay briefing on Defendant’s Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Defendant shall respond 16 to Plaintiff’s complaint within “ten court days” of the date of 17 this Order. 18 motion to dismiss, the case management conference will be 19 continued until the pleadings are settled. 20 until the case management conference is held. 21 (Docket No. 24, at 1:25-26.) If Defendant files a Discovery is stayed IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Dated: 9/1/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?