Kenny et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al
Filing
25
STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Request to Continue Defendant's Time to Respond to Complaint by Carrier IQ, Inc. re 23 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/21/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
RODGER R. COLE (CSB No. 178865)
rcole@fenwick.com
MOLLY R. MELCHER (CSB No. 272950)
mmelcher@fenwick.com
FENWICK & WEST LLP
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Telephone: 650.988.8500
Facsimile: 650.938.5200
6
7
8
9
10
TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790)
tnewby@fenwick.com
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415.875.2300
Facsimile: 415.281.1350
Attorneys for Defendant
Carrier IQ, Inc.
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN JOSE DIVISION
14
15
16
17
PATRICK KENNY, an Arizona resident,
JUSTIN SHARP, a California resident, JEREMY
FEITELSON, an Iowa resident, and GREG
FEITELSON, a Kentucky resident, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
18
19
20
21
22
23
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 11-CV-05774-EJD
STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE
OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
v.
CARRIER IQ, a Delaware corporation; HTC
CORPORATION, a Taiwanese company; HTC
AMERICA, INC., a Washington corporation; and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean company,
Defendants.
24
25
26
WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs filed the above-captioned case;
27
WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs allege violations of the Federal Wiretap Act
28
and other laws by the defendants in this case;
STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR
DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
11-CV-05774-EJD
WHEREAS over 50 other complaints have been filed to-date in federal district courts
1
2
throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf of cellular
3
telephone and other device users on whose devices software made by defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. is
4
or has been embedded (collectively, including the above-captioned matter, the “CIQ cases”);
5
WHEREAS, a motion is pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
6
transfer the CIQ cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings
7
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, responses to the motion supporting coordination or
8
consolidation have been filed, and plaintiffs and defendants anticipate that additional responses
9
will be filed;
WHEREAS plaintiffs anticipate the possibility of one or more consolidated amended
10
11
complaints in the CIQ cases;
WHEREAS plaintiffs and defendant Carrier IQ have agreed that an orderly schedule for
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
12
13
any response to the pleadings in the CIQ cases would be more efficient for the parties and for the
14
Court;
15
WHEREAS plaintiffs agree that the deadline for defendant Carrier IQ to answer, move, or
16
otherwise respond to their complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: (1)
17
forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in the CIQ cases; or (2) forty-
18
five days after plaintiffs provide written notice to defendants that plaintiffs do not intend to file a
19
consolidated amended complaint; or (3) as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee
20
court; provided, however, that in the event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date
21
in any of these cases, Carrier IQ will respond to the complaint in the above-captioned action on
22
that earlier date;
23
WHEREAS plaintiffs further agree that this extension is available, without further
24
stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs, to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of
25
their intention to join this Stipulation;
26
WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ of any defense,
27
including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter
28
jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process or service of process;
STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR
DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
2
11-CV-05774-EJD
1
WHEREAS, with respect to any defendant joining the Stipulation, this Stipulation does
2
not constitute a waiver of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of
3
personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or
4
service of process; and
5
WHEREAS, plaintiffs and defendant Carrier IQ, as well as any defendant joining this
6
Stipulation, agree that preservation of evidence in the CIQ cases is vital, that defendants have
7
received litigation hold letters, that they are complying with and will continue to comply with all
8
of their evidence preservation obligations under governing law, and that that the delay brought
9
about by this Stipulation should not result in the loss of any evidence,
10
Now, therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, plaintiffs in the above-referenced case
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
and defendant Carrier IQ, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as
12
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
11
follows:
13
1. The deadline for Carrier IQ to answer, move, or otherwise respond to plaintiffs’
14
complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: forty-five days after the filing
15
of a consolidated amended complaint in these cases; or forty-five days after plaintiffs provide
16
written notice to defendant Carrier IQ that plaintiffs do not intend to file a Consolidated Amended
17
Complaint; or as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court; provided,
18
however, that in the event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date in any of these
19
cases, except by court order, Carrier IQ will respond to the complaint in the above-captioned case
20
on that earlier date.
21
2. This extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs,
22
to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of their intention to join this Stipulation;
23
3. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ or any other named
24
defendant joining the Stipulation of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack
25
of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or
26
service of process.
27
28
STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR
DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
3
11-CV-05774-EJD
1
4. As a condition of entry into this Stipulation, defendant Carrier IQ and any other
2
defendant(s) joining this Stipulation, and the plaintiffs, agree that they are complying with and
3
will continue to comply with all evidentiary preservation obligations under governing law.
4
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
5
DATED: December 19, 2011
6
By /s/ Robert Lopez
Steve W. Berman, pro hac vice
Robert F. Lopez, pro hac vice
Thomas E. Loeser (202724)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 623-7292
7
8
9
10
11
14
SHANA E. SCARLETT (217895)
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
shanas@hbsslaw.com
15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
16
FENWICK & WEST LLP
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
12
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
13
17
By /s/ Tyler G. Newby
TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790)
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Ph: (415) 875-2300
Fax: (415) 281-1350
tnewby@fenwick.com
18
19
20
21
RODGER R. COLE (CSB No. 178865)
MOLLY R. MELCHER (CSB No. 272950)
FENWICK & WEST LLP
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Ph: (650) 988-8500
Fax: (650) 938-5200
rcole@fenwick.com
22
23
24
25
26
Attorneys for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc.
27
28
STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR
DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
4
11-CV-05774-EJD
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1
2
Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED.
3
4
Dated: December 21, 2011
5
Honorable Edward J. Davila
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR
DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
5
11-CV-05774-EJD
1
CERTIFICATION
2
I, Tyler G. Newby, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being
3
used to file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF
4
TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. In compliance with General
5
Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Robert Lopez has concurred in this filing.
6
7
DATED: December 19, 2011
8
9
10
By /s/ Tyler G. Newby
TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790)
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Ph: (415) 875-2300
Fax: (415) 281-1350
tnewby@fenwick.com
11
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
12
13
25143/00401/SF/5370735.1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR
DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
6
11-CV-05774-EJD
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?