Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al

Filing 94

Declaration of Maren J. Clouse in Support of 93 Defendant Apple Inc.'s Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Apple, Inc. (Charlson, Michael) (Filed on 5/16/2011) Modified on 5/20/2011 counsel failed to link entry to document #93 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Michael L. Charlson (Bar No. 122125)
Maren J. Clouse (Bar No. 228726)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
525 University Avenue, 4th Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Christopher Wolf (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
Clayton C. James (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
One Tabor Center, Suite 1500
1200 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC., a California corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

18
19
20

In re iPhone Application Litigation

Case No. CV-10-5878 LHK (PSG)

22

DECLARATION OF MAREN J. CLOUSE
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT APPLE
INC.’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

23

The Honorable Lucy H. Koh

21

24
25
26
27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

CLOUSE DECL. ISO MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

I, Maren J. Clouse, declare as follows:

2

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an associate

3

with the law firm of Hogan Lovells US LLP, counsel for defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in this

4

action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and could competently testify as

5

follows.

6

2. Apple requests an enlargement of time in which to respond to the First Amended

7

Consolidated Complaint to June 13, 2011, to avoid the waste of judicial and party resources that

8

would result if Apple files its motion to dismiss before the Court rules on Apple’s Motion to Stay

9

and before other defendants file responsive motions.

10

3. Attorneys for Apple have communicated with Interim Class Counsel Scott Kamber by

11

telephone and email in an effort to obtain his agreement to the requested enlargement of time.

12

Mr. Kamber has declined to so agree. Mr. Kamber agreed to file on Tuesday, May 17, 2011 any

13

opposition by Plaintiffs to Apple’s Motion to Enlarge Time.

14

4. I have been informed by Mr. Kamber that he has granted or will grant defendants

15

AdMob, Inc., MobClix, Pinch Media, Inc., TrafficMarketplace.com, Inc., Millenial Media,

16

AdMarvel, Inc., and Quattro Wireless, Inc. extensions of time in which to respond to the

17

Consolidated Complaint until June 13, 2011.

18

5. If Apple’s Motion to Enlarge Time is denied, Apple would file its motion to dismiss

19

two days before the Court is scheduled to hear argument on Apple’s Motion to Stay, which may

20

result in these actions being stayed pending likely consolidation or coordination with other

21

actions subject to Apple’s pending motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

22

Apple would also file its motion to dismiss weeks before most of the other defendants.

23

6. Apple and Plaintiffs earlier stipulated to an extension of time in which to respond to

24

the complaint in the underlying action captioned Lalo, et al. v. Apple, Inc., et al. until March 16,

25

2011 (Dkt. No. 24). The Court entered a Stipulation and Order Consolidating Cases on March

26

15, 2011 (Dkt. No. 36), which consolidated these actions and required Apple and other

27

defendants to respond within 30 days of the filing of a consolidated complaint. The Court then

28

issued an Order Regarding Case Schedule and Case Management requiring plaintiffs to file a

H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

-1-

CLOUSE DECL. ISO MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

consolidated complaint by April 20, 2011 and requiring Apple to respond to the consolidated

2

complaint within 30 days of filing.

3

7. Apple’s response to the Consolidated Complaint is currently due on May 23, 2011,

4

thirty days after Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Complaint on April 21, 2011. The requested

5

enlargement of time would move Apple’s response date to June 13, 2011.

6
7
8
9

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
16th day of May, 2010 in Palo Alto, California.

10

/s/ Maren J. Clouse
Maren J. Clouse

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

-2-

CLOUSE DECL. ISO MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK