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)

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