Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al

Filing 203

ORDER re (103 in 5:11-md-02250-LHK) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re Briefing Schedule for Motion to Dismiss and Response to Complaint filed by Anthony Chiu. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 10/11/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

IN RE IPHONE APPLICATION LITIG.

13
14
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-MD-02250-LHK
ORDER VACATING HEARING

On July 27, 2012, Apple Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss (1) Plaintiffs Gupta, Freeman, M.

17

Burke, and W. Burke, and (2) Claims of Putative Geolocation Class from Plaintiffs’ Second

18

Amended Consolidated Complaint. ECF. No. 76. On August 8, 2012, the Court entered a Minute

19

and Case Management Order modifying the case schedule, which provided that both Plaintiffs’

20

Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and the deadline to amend the SACC were to be filed on or

21

before October 4, 2012. ECF. No. 88.

22

On October 4, 2012, the parties submitted to the Court a Stipulation and Proposed Order

23

Re: Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Apple Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and Apple’s

24

Response to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Consolidated Complaint (“TACC”). ECF No. 103.

25

Specifically, the parties stipulated that Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Dismiss would

26

be due on October 10, 2012, that Apple’s Reply would be due on October 25, 2012, and that the

27

hearing date would remain on November 15, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. The parties also stipulated that

28

Apple’s response to Plaintiffs’ TACC would be due on November 2, 2012, if Apple withdrew its
1
Case No.: 11-MD-02250-LHK
ORDER VACATING HEARING

1

Motion to Dismiss. If Apple did not withdraw its Motion to Dismiss, the parties stipulated that

2

Apple’s response would be due 15 days after the Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss.

3

Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on October 4, 2012.

4

ECF. No. 104. On October 10, 2012, Apple filed its Notice of Withdrawal of Defendant Apple

5

Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (1) Plaintiffs Gupta, Freeman, M. Burke, and W. Burke, and (2) Claims

6

of Putative Geolocation Class from Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Consolidated Complaint.

7
8

Accordingly, the November 15, 2012, hearing and case management conference are hereby
VACATED. Apple’s response to Plaintiffs’ TACC is due on November 2, 2012.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: October 11, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-MD-02250-LHK
ORDER VACATING HEARING