Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al

Filing 102

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS FLURRY, INC. AND PINCH MEDIA, INC. TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO FIRST CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT by Flurry, Inc.. (Lees, Gail) (Filed on 5/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
[e-mail]
S. ASHLIE BERINGER, SBN 263977
[e-mail]
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
[e-mail]
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.849.5333
Attorneys for Defendants
FLURRY, INC.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12

In re iPhone Application Litigation

CASE NO. 5:10-CV-05878 LHK (PSG)

13

STIPULATED AGREEMENT FOR AN
ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS FLURRY, INC. AND
PINCH MEDIA, INC. TO ANSWER OR
OTHERWISE RESPOND TO FIRST
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT

14
15
16
17

The Honorable Lucy H. Koh

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

1
Stipulation to Extend Time – Case No. 5:10-CV-05878 LHK (PSG)

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Jonathan Lalo, Dustin Freeman, Anthony Chiu, Daniel Rodimer and

2

Jared Parsley (“Plaintiffs”) filed a First Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) on April

3

21, 2011 (ECF No. 71);

4

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s April 7, 2011 Order Regarding Case Schedule and Case

5

Management (ECF No. 66), defendants have 30 days from the filing of the Complaint, up to and

6

including May 23, 2011, to respond to the Complaint;

7
8
9

WHEREAS, on May 9, 2011, Plaintiffs served Defendant Flurry, Inc. (“Flurry”) with a
Summons with the Complaint attached;
WHEREAS, the parties are discussing whether or not Plaintiffs have effected valid service of

10

the Complaint upon Defendant Pinch Media, Inc. (“Pinch Media”), but undersigned counsel for

11

Flurry has agreed to accept service of the Complaint on behalf of Pinch Media in the event Pinch

12

Media has not yet been served;

13

WHEREAS, Flurry is the parent corporation of Pinch Media, and the parties are in

14

discussions regarding whether Flurry and Pinch Media should be treated as separate entities or a

15

single entity for purposes of this litigation;

16

WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing and the status of the litigation, including the parties’

17

discussions regarding the treatment of Flurry and Pinch Media given the relationship between the two

18

companies, undersigned counsel believe an extension of time for Flurry and Pinch Media to respond

19

to the Complaint is appropriate;

20

THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, and subject to the approval of this Court,

21

Plaintiffs, Flurry, and Pinch Media hereby stipulate to extend the time Flurry and Pinch Media have

22

to answer or otherwise respond to the First Consolidated Class Action Complaint to and including

23

June 13, 2011. The parties have not previously requested an extension of this deadline, and the

24

requested extension will not alter the date of any other event or any other deadline already fixed by

25

Court order. The parties are submitting a proposed order.

26

DATED: May 18, 2011

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

27
By:

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2
Stipulation to Extend Time – Case No. 5:10-CV-05878 LHK (PSG)

/s/ Gail E. Lees
Gail E. Lees

1
Attorneys for Defendant
FLURRY, INC.

2
3
4

DATED: May 18, 2011

KAMBERLAW, LLC

5

By:

6
7

/s/ Scott A. Kamber
Scott A. Kamber
David A. Stampley

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8
9

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION

10
11
12
13

Pursuant to General Order 45, I, Gail E. Lees, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of
this document has been obtained.
DATED: May 18, 2011

/s/ Gail E. Lees
Gail E. Lees

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

3
Stipulation to Extend Time – Case No. 5:10-CV-05878 LHK (PSG)