Friedman v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 28

STIPULATION AND ORDER 89 for Consolidation to Master Case C-10-02553-RMW. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 5/31/11. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2011) Modified on 6/9/2011 (jg, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS (CA SBN 87607)
([e-mail])
ANDREW D. MUHLBACH (CA SBN 175694)
([e-mail])
STUART C. PLUNKETT (CA SBN 187971)
([e-mail])
HEATHER A. MOSER (CA SBN 212686)
([e-mail])
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.268.7522

*E-FILED - 5/31/11*

Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
Case Nos. 5:10-cv-02553 RMW

14

CLASS ACTION

ALL CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS

15

In re Apple and AT&T iPad Unlimited Data Plan
Litigation

STIPULATION AND []
ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATION

16
17

The Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
18
Master Consolidated Complaint filed:
December 10, 2010

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATION
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02553 RMW
sf-2991103

1
2
3
4
5
6

WHEREAS, Weisblatt et. al v. Apple Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:10-cv-02553RMW) (the “Weisblatt” action) was filed on June 9, 2010;
WHEREAS, Logan v. Apple Inc. et. al. (N. D. Cal. Case No. 5:10-cv-02588-RMW) (the
“Logan” action) was filed on June 11, 2010;
WHEREAS, Osetek v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:10-cv-04253-RMW) (the
“Osetek” action) was filed on September 20, 2010;

7

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2010, this Court entered an Order consolidating the

8

Weisblatt, Logan, and Osetek actions for all purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

9

42 (ECF No. 66);

10

WHEREAS, on January 25, 2011, this Court entered Case Management Order No. 1,

11

which “govern[s] and control[s] all procedures and proceedings in the…consolidated actions and

12

any related actions which may be made part of these consolidated proceedings.” (ECF No. 79)

13

(“CMO No. 1”);

14
15
16
17
18

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Aaron Friedman filed Friedman v. Apple Inc. et al. (the “Friedman
action”) on November 22, 2010 in the Southern District of California;
WHEREAS, the Friedman action was assigned to Judge Sammartino as Case No. 3:10cv-02403-JSL-POR.
WHEREAS, the Friedman action raises factual and legal issues similar to those raised in

19

the above-captioned consolidated action, against the same defendants on behalf of overlapping

20

putative classes;

21
22
23

WHEREAS, in light of the similarity of factual and legal issues, plaintiff Friedman and
Apple filed a Joint Motion to Transfer the Friedman action to the Northern District of California;
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2011, Judge Sammartino granted the parties’ Joint Motion to

24

Transfer, and ordered the Friedman action to be transferred to the San Jose Division of the United

25

States District Court for the Northern District of California to be coordinated and consolidated

26

with the above-captioned consolidated action for all pretrial and trial proceedings;

27
28

WHEREAS, on April 19, 2011, the Friedman action was assigned to Judge Ronald M.
Whyte as Case No. 5:11-cv-01875-RMW;
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATION
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02553 RMW
sf-2991103

1

1

WHEREAS the Friedman action and the above-captioned consolidated action arise from

2

the same circumstances and allegations, involve common questions of law and fact, and are both

3

currently pending before this Court;

4

WHEREAS counsel for plaintiff Friedman, for plaintiffs in the above-captioned

5

consolidated action, and for Apple have conferred and agree that consolidation of the Friedman

6

action with the above-captioned consolidated action is proper;

7

Plaintiffs in the Friedman and above-captioned action and defendant Apple, by and

8

through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate that the Friedman action shall be consolidated

9

with the above-captioned consolidated action for all purposes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)

10
11

and constitutes a “Later Filed Case” subject to terms of CMO No. 1.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

12
13

Dated: May 9, 2011

14
15

MICHAEL W. SOBOL
ROGER N. HELLER
ALLISON ELGART
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP

16
By:

17

/s/ Michael W. Sobol
MICHAEL W. SOBOL

18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19
20
21
22

Dated: May 9, 2011

PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS
ANDREW D. MUHLBACH
STUART C. PLUNKETT
HEATHER A. MOSER
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

23
24

By:

25

/s/ Penelope A. Preovolos
PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATION
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02553 RMW
sf-2991103

2

1

Dated: May 9, 2011

2

GAYLE M. BLATT
CASEY, GERRY, SCHENK,
FRANCAVILLA, BLATT & PENFIELD LLP

3
4

By:

/s/ Gayle M. Blatt
GAYLE M. BLATT

5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AARON FRIEDMAN

6
7
8
9

I, Penelope A. Preovolos, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file
this Stipulation. In compliance with General Order 45, section X.B., I hereby attest that I have on
file the concurrences for any signatures indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this
efiled document.

10
11

By:

/s/ Penelope A. Preovolos
Penelope A. Preovolos

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/31/11
_______________________________
Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATION
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-02553 RMW
sf-2991103

3