Silvera et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al
Filing
31
STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Extension of Time for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. to Respond to Complaint re 29 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/29/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2011)
1
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
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
2
STEVEN J. SKIKOS (SBN 148110)
sskikos@skikoscrawford.com
MARK G. CRAWFOD (SBN 136501)
mcrawford@skikoscrawford.com
SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, SKIKOS & JOSEPH
LLP
625 Market Street, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone:
(415) 546-7300
Facsimile:
(415) 546-7301
TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790)
tnewby@fenwick.com
JENNIFER J. JOHNSON (CSB No. 252897)
jjjohnson@fenwick.com
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415.875.2300
Facsimile: 415.281.1350
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Additional counsel listed on signature page
Attorneys for Defendant
Carrier IQ, Inc.
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN JOSE DIVISION
16
18
ROWENA SILVERA and ANDREW
SANDERS, Individually, and on Behalf of all
Similarly Situated Persons,
19
Plaintiffs,
17
20
v.
21
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD
STIPULATION RE: EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR DEFENDANT CARRIER
IQ, INC. TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CARRIER IQ, INC., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., HTC
AMERICA INC., AT&T, INC. SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., JOHN
DOE MANUFACTURERS (1-10), JOHN DOE
CARRIERS (1-10),
22
23
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD
1
WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs filed the above-captioned case;
2
3
WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs allege violations of the Federal
Wiretap Act and other laws by the defendants in this case;
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
WHEREAS over 50 other complaints have been filed to-date in federal district
courts throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf of
cellular telephone and other device users on whose devices software made by defendant Carrier
IQ, Inc. is or has been embedded (collectively, including the above-captioned matter, the “CIQ
cases”);
WHEREAS, a motion is pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer the CIQ cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, and responses to the motion supporting
coordination or consolidation have been filed;
WHEREAS plaintiffs anticipate the possibility of one or more consolidated
amended complaints in the CIQ cases;
WHEREAS plaintiffs and defendant Carrier IQ have agreed that an orderly
schedule for any response to the pleadings in the CIQ cases would be more efficient for the
parties and for the Court;
WHEREAS plaintiffs agree that the deadline for defendant Carrier IQ to answer,
move, or otherwise respond to their complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following
dates: (1) forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in the CIQ cases; or
(2) forty-five days after plaintiffs provide written notice to defendants that plaintiffs do not intend
to file a consolidated amended complaint; or (3) as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL
transferee court; provided, however, that in the event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier
response date in any of these cases, Carrier IQ will respond to the complaint in the abovecaptioned action on that earlier date;
WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ of any
defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
-2-
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD
1
jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process or service of process;
2
3
4
5
WHEREAS, this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by plaintiffs to move for
a preliminary injunction, motion for expedited discovery or any other pre-answer motion against
Carrier IQ or any other defendant, and Carrier IQ agrees that this Stipulation shall not be the basis
for objection to said motions; and
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
WHEREAS, this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ of any
defense or objection to any motion for a preliminary injunction, motion for expedited discovery
or any other pre-answer motion filed by plaintiffs, including but not limited to moving to stay the
action; and
WHEREAS, plaintiffs and defendant Carrier IQ, agree that preservation of
evidence in the CIQ cases is vital, that defendants have received litigation hold letters, that they
are complying with and will continue to comply with all of their evidence preservation
obligations under governing law, and that that the delay brought about by this Stipulation should
not result in the loss of any evidence,
Now, therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, plaintiffs in the abovereferenced case and defendant Carrier IQ, by and through their respective counsel of record,
hereby stipulate as follows:
1. The deadline for Carrier IQ to answer, move, or otherwise respond to plaintiffs’
complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: forty-five
days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in these cases; or fortyfive days after plaintiffs provide written notice to defendant Carrier IQ that
plaintiffs do not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint; or as otherwise
ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court; provided, however, that in the
event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date in any of these cases,
except by court order, Carrier IQ will respond to the complaint in the abovecaptioned case on that earlier date.
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
-3-
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ of any defense,
including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject
matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or service of process.
3. As a condition of entry into this Stipulation, defendant Carrier IQ and the
plaintiffs, agree that they are complying with and will continue to comply with all
evidentiary preservation obligations under governing law.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
8
9
10
DATED: December 28, 2011
SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, SKIKOS & JOSEPH
LLP
11
12
13
14
By: /s/ Mark G. Crawford
Steven J. Skikos
Mark G. Crawford
15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16
DATED: December 28, 2011
FENWICK & WEST LLP
17
18
By: /s/ Tyler G. Newby
Tyler G. Newby
19
Attorneys for Defendant
Carrier IQ, Inc.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
-4-
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD
1
Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs:
2
HERMAN GEREL LLP
3
Maury A. Herman
mherman@hhkc.com
820 O’Keefe Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70113
Telephone:
(504) 581-4892
Facsimile:
(501) 561-6024
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Christopher V. Tisi
cvtisi@aol.com
2000 L Street, NW Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone:
(202) 783-6400
Facsimile:
(202) 416-6392
Andrea S. Hirsch
ahirsch@hermangerel.com
230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2260
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 880-9500
Facsimile:
(404) 880-9605
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
-5-
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD
2
3
4
5
STEVEN J. SKIKOS (SBN 148110)
sskikos@skikoscrawford.com
MARK G. CRAWFOD (SBN 136501)
mcrawford@skikoscrawford.com
SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, SKIKOS & JOSEPH
LLP
625 Market Street, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone:
(415) 546-7300
Facsimile:
(415) 546-7301
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
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
1
TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790)
tnewby@fenwick.com
JENNIFER J. JOHNSON (CSB No. 252897)
jjjohnson@fenwick.com
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415.875.2300
Facsimile: 415.281.1350
6
7
8
9
10
11
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
12
Additional counsel listed on signature page
Attorneys for Defendant
Carrier IQ, Inc.
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN JOSE DIVISION
16
18
ROWENA SILVERA and ANDREW
SANDERS, Individually and On Behalf of all
Similarly Situated Persons,
19
Plaintiffs,
17
20
21
22
23
24
v.
Case No.: CV-11-05821-EJD
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE
OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CARRIER IQ, INC., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., HTC
AMERICA INC, AT&T, INC., SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., JOHN
DOE MANUFACTURERS (1-10), JOHN DOE
CARRIERS (1-10),
Defendants.
25
26
27
Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 29, 2011
Honorable Edward J. Davila
United States District Judge
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER
CV-11-05821-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 Mark G. Crawford has concurred in this filing.
6
7
DATED: December 28, 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
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
-6-
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-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?