Doe I et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
25
STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Re: Proof of Service of Process and Briefing Schedule for Motion to Dismiss by Doe I, Doe II, Doe III, Doe IV, Doe V, Doe VI, Liu Guifu, Ivy He, Charles Lee, Roe VII, Roe VIII. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Shah, Rajika) (Filed on 6/17/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
KATHRYN LEE BOYD, ESQ. (SBN 189496)
lboyd@srbr-law.com
RAJIKA L. SHAH, ESQ. (SBN 232994)
rshah@srbr-law.com
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 360
Los Angeles, California 90048
Phone: (323) 302-9488
Fax: (323) 931-4990
TERRI MARSH, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
terri.marsh@hrlf.net
BRIAN PIERCE, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
bjpierce@gmail.com
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOUNDATION
1615 L Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: (202) 369-4977
Fax: (202) 355-6701
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
14
15
16
17
18
DOE I, DOE II, Ivy HE, DOE III, DOE
IV, DOE V, DOE VI, ROE VII, Charles
LEE, ROE VIII, and LIU Guifu,
19
Plaintiffs,
20
21
22
23
24
vs.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., John
CHAMBERS, Thomas LAM, Owen
CHAN, and DOES 1-100,
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF
JOINT STIPULATION RE: PROOF OF
SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO DISMISS
Action Filed: May 19, 2011
Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
Dept: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF
STIPULATION
1
2
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between DOE I, DOE II, Ivy HE, DOE
3
III, DOE IV, DOE V, DOE VI, ROE VII, Charles LEE, ROE VIII, and LIU Guifu (“Plaintiffs”)
4
and Defendants CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. (“Cisco”), John CHAMBERS (“Chambers”), Thomas
5
LAM (“Lam”), and Owen CHAN (“Chan”) (collectively, the “Parties”), as follows:
6
WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs received an email from William Friedman, Director of
7
Legal Services at Cisco (“Mr. Friedman”), on May 20, 2011, informing counsel for Plaintiffs
8
that he was in receipt of the Complaint filed in the above-referenced case on May 19, 2011, and
9
that Cisco would accept service of process on behalf of both Chambers and Cisco via PDF/email
10
11
sent to him at email address bilfried@cisco.com;
WHEREAS, Rajika Shah (“Ms. Shah”), associate counsel for Plaintiffs, responded to Mr.
12
Friedman’s email and stated that she would forward service copies of the Summons and
13
Complaint and other initiating documents to Mr. Friedman on behalf of both Cisco and
14
Chambers as PDF documents via email to email address bilfried@cisco.com;
15
WHEREAS, Ms. Shah emailed service copies to Mr. Friedman at email address
16
bilfried@cisco.com of the Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents consisting of
17
the following in PDF format on May 27, 2011:
18
Complaint
19
Summons on Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.
20
Summons on Defendant John Chambers
21
Certification of Interested Parties
22
Civil Case Cover Sheet
23
San Jose Division Standing Order Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases
24
N.D.Cal. Standing Order Regarding Contents of Joint Case Management
Statement
25
26
Order Reassigning the case to the Hon. Jeremy Fogel for all proceedings
27
Notice of Electronic Filing assigning the case to Magistrate Judge;
28
WHEREAS, Ms. Shah also emailed service copies to Mr. Friedman at email address
-1-
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF
1
bilfried@cisco.com of Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed anonymously and through appointed next
2
friends and the pro hac vice applications of Terri Marsh and Brian Pierce consisting of the
3
following in PDF format on May 27, 2011:
4
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Proceed Anonymously
5
[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Anonymously
6
Declaration of Terri Marsh in support of Motion to Proceed Anonymously
7
Exhibit A to Declaration of Terri Marsh
8
Exhibit B to Declaration of Terri Marsh
9
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Proceed Through Appointed Next
Friend
10
11
Next Friend
12
13
Declaration of Terri Marsh in support of Motion to Proceed Through Appointed
Next Friend
14
15
[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed Through Appointed
Declaration of Roe III in support of Motion to Proceed Through Appointed Next
Friend
16
17
Pro hac vice application of Terri Marsh
18
[Proposed] Order Granting Terri Marsh pro hac vice application
19
Pro hac vice application of Brian Pierce
20
[Proposed] Order Granting Brian Pierce pro hac vice application
21
WHEREAS, Ms. Shah also emailed service copies to Mr. Friedman at email address
22
bilfried@cisco.com of all other documents on the docket in the above-referenced case as of May
23
27, 2011, consisting of the following in PDF format, on May 27, 2011:
24
Summons on Defendant Owen Chan
25
Summons on Defendant Thomas Lam
26
Order Setting Initial CMC with Magistrate Judge Grewal
27
Standing Order of Magistrate Judge Grewal in civil matters
28
Standing Order of Magistrate Judge Grewal re: Settlement Conference Procedures
-2-
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048
JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF
1
Plaintiffs’ Declination to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge Grewal
2
Notice of Impending Reassignment of District Judge;
3
WHEREAS, Mr. Friedman acknowledged in a telephone conversation with Ms. Shah on
4
June 3, 2011, that he had received service of the Summons and Complaint and other initiating
5
documents as set forth above and that service on Defendants Cisco and Chambers was valid;
WHEREAS, Mr. Friedman also acknowledged in the June 3 telephone conversation with
6
7
Ms. Shah that Cisco and Chambers had hired outside counsel and would be represented going
8
forward by Kathleen Sullivan of the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (“Quinn
9
Emanuel”);
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2011, Ms. Shah spoke with Isaac Nesser (“Mr. Nesser”),
10
11
associate counsel at Quinn Emanuel, and Mr. Nesser confirmed that Cisco and Chambers had
12
been validly served with the Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents as set forth
13
above;
14
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2011, Ms. Shah spoke again with Mr. Nesser, who confirmed
15
that Quinn Emanuel had been authorized to accept service on Lam and Chan of the Summons
16
and Complaint and other initiating documents as set forth above effective as of May 27, 2011;
17
WHEREAS Cisco, Chambers, Lam, and Chan (collectively, “Defendants”) do each
18
hereby acknowledge that service of the Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents
19
as set forth above is valid and effective as to each of them as of May 27, 2011, and hereby waive
20
any and all defense(s) and objections to service of process;
21
22
23
24
25
WHEREAS Defendants have expressed their intent to file a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint;
NOW THEREFOR IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties,
through counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants, that:
1.
Subject to and in accordance with the recitations set forth above, service of the
26
Summons and Complaint and other initiating documents as set forth above is valid and effective
27
as to Defendants as of May 27, 2011.
28
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048
2.
Defendants hereby waive any and all defense(s) and objections to service of
-3JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF
1
process in the above-referenced action.
3.
3
4
This Stipulation will constitute a valid Proof of Service upon filing with the
4.
2
The Parties hereby stipulate to the following briefing schedule on Defendants’
Court.
5
forthcoming Motion to Dismiss:
6
a.
7
due no later than August 4, 2011;
8
b.
9
10
11
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and any and all supporting documents are
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and any and all supporting
documents are due no later than October 12, 2011; and
c.
Defendants’ Reply and any and all supporting documents are due no later
than November 14, 2011.
12
13
14
15
DATED: June 17, 2011
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG, BOYD &
RADER, LLP
By:
16
/s/Rajika L. Shah
Rajika L. Shah, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17
18
19
20
21
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
By:
/s/Kathleen Sullivan
Kathleen Sullivan, Esq.
22
23
24
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Tel: 212.849.7000
Fax: 212.849.7100
25
26
Attorneys for Defendants
27
28
SCHWARCZ, RIMBERG,
BOYD & RADER, LLP
6310 San Vicente Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90048
-4JOINT STIPULATION AND PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Case No. 5:11-cv-02449-JF
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?