Jenkins et al v. Apple, Inc

Filing 20

ORDER Denying Request to Consolidate and Setting Briefing Schedule re 17 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Koh on 5/24/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

CHRISTINA JENKINS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-001828-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
CONSOLIDATE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO
REMAND

16

On May 12, 2011, counsel for Plaintiffs filed an Objection to Apple’s Proposed Order

17

Consolidating this action (the “Jenkins Action”) with the In Re iPhone Application Litigation

18

Action, Case Number 10-CV-05878-LHK. See Dkt. #14. On May 16, 2011, Apple submitted a

19

Response to Plaintiffs, noting that under the March 15, 2011 Order Consolidating Cases in the In

20

Re iPhone Application Litigation (the “Consolidation Order”), Plaintiffs did not file their objection

21

within the ten-day limit set out in the Consolidation Order. See Dkt. #16.

22

Although Apple is correct that Plaintiffs’ objection was not timely filed in accordance with

23

the Consolidation Order, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that consolidation of the Jenkins Action is

24

premature given Plaintiffs’ recently filed motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

25

See Dkt. #17. If the Court determines it does have subject matter jurisdiction over the Jenkins

26

Action, it will consolidate it with the In Re iPhone Application Litigation. If, on the other hand, the

27

Court determines that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will remand the action

28

to Santa Clara County Superior Court.
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01828-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is noticed for a hearing on July 21, 2011. The Court finds this

2

motion appropriate for expedited briefing. Accordingly, Apple’s Opposition is due by June 17,

3

2011, and Plaintiffs’ Reply is due by June 29, 2011.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: May 24, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01828-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE