Goodlick v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 45

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 40 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Whyte on 8/5/10. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2010)

Goodlick v. Apple, Inc.

Doc. 45

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

KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP William A. Kershaw (State Bar No. 057486) [e-mail] C. Brooks Cutter (State Bar No. 121407) [e-mail] Stuart C. Talley (State Bar No. 180374) [e-mail] John R. Parker, Jr. (State Bar No. 257761) [e-mail] 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, California 95864 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael James Goodglick, Karen Young, Joshua Gibson, Brandon Ellison Reininger, Trevor Antunez, Jessica Lares, Jaywell Sands, Bryan Clover, Jaclyn Badolato, Nicole Stankovitz, and Vinny Curbelo UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION MICHAEL JAMES GOODGLICK, KAREN YOUNG, JOSHUA GILSON, BRANDON ELLISON REININGER, TREVOR ANTUNEZ, JESSICA LARES, JAYWILL SANDS, BRYAN COLVER, JACLYN BADOLATO, NICOLE STANKOVITZ, and VINNY CURBELO, on behalf of themselves and all others who are similarly situation, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., AT&T Corp., Defendants. Case No. 5:10-cv-02862-RMW STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANT AT&T MOBILITY LLC FOR AT&T CORP. The Hon. Ronald M. Whyte FAC filed: June 30, 2010

CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02862-RMW STIPULATION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE AT&T CORP. WITH AT&T MOBILITY LLC
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

WHEREAS, on June 29, 2010, Plaintiff Michael James Goodglick filed a complaint in the Northern District of California, naming Apple Inc. as a defendant. WHEREAS, on June 30, 2010, Plaintiffs Michael James Goodglick Karen Young, Joshua Gilson, Brandon Ellison Reininger, Trevor Antunez, Jessica Lares, Jaywill Sands, Bryan Colver, Jaclyn Badolato, Nicole Stankovitz and Vinny Curbelo filed a First Amended Complaint which, among other changes, added AT&T Corp. as a defendant. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs on the one hand, and AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Corp. on the other, have stipulated and agree that AT&T Mobility LLC should be substituted as a named defendant in the place of AT&T Corp. WHEREAS, Defendant Apple Inc. does not object to the substitution of AT&T Mobility LLC in the place of AT&T Corp. as a defendant. THEREFORE, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), all parties, by and through their attorneys, stipulate to the filing of a Second Amended Complaint, attached as Exhibit A to this Stipulation, for the purpose of substituting AT&T Mobility LLC for defendant AT&T Corp. Dated: July 28, 2010 KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP By: /s/ Stuart C. Talley Stuart C. Talley Attorneys for Plaintiff CROWELL & MORING, LLP By: /s/ Kathleen Sooy Kathleen Sooy Attorneys for Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Corp. MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP By: /s/ Penelope A. Preovolos Penelope A. Preovolos Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.

Dated: July 28, 2010

Dated: July 28, 2010

CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02862-RMW 1 STIPULATION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE AT&T CORP. WITH AT&T MOBILITY LLC

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 Dated:August 5, 2010

ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

By: The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte United States District Court Judge

CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02862-RMW 2 STIPULATION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE AT&T CORP. WITH AT&T MOBILITY LLC