Padilla et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc

Filing 15

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Continue Defendant's Time to Respond to Complaint as to Carrier IQ, Inc. re 14 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/4/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

RODGER R. COLE (CSB No. 178865)
[e-mail]
MOLLY R. MELCHER (CSB No. 272950)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.938.5200

6
7
8
9
10
11

TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER J. JOHNSON (CSB No. 252897)
[e-mail]
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.281.1350
Attorneys for Defendant
Carrier IQ, Inc.

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN JOSE DIVISION

15

17

LINDSAY PADILLA, ELIEZER PILOWSKY,
and STEVEN WATTS, on behalf of themselves
and ALL others similarly situated,

18

Plaintiffs,

16

19
20
21

v.

Case No.: CV-11-05975-EJD
STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE
OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CARRIER IQ, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
and Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

22
23

WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs filed the above-captioned case;

24

WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs allege violations of the Federal Wiretap Act

25
26

and other laws by the defendants in this case;
WHEREAS over 50 other complaints have been filed to-date in federal district courts

27

throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf of cellular

28

telephone and other device users on whose devices software made by defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. is
STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR
DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

CV-11-05975-EJD

1

or has been embedded (collectively, including the above-captioned matter, the “CIQ cases”);

2

WHEREAS, a motion is pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to

3

transfer the CIQ cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings

4

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, and responses to the motion supporting coordination or

5

consolidation have been filed;
WHEREAS plaintiffs anticipate the possibility of one or more consolidated amended

6
7

complaints in the CIQ cases;
WHEREAS plaintiffs and defendant Carrier IQ have agreed that an orderly schedule for

8
9
10

any response to the pleadings in the CIQ cases would be more efficient for the parties and for the
Court;

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

WHEREAS plaintiffs agree that the deadline for defendant Carrier IQ to answer, move, or

12
F ENWICK & W EST LLP

11

otherwise respond to their complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: (1)

13

forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in the CIQ cases; or (2) forty-

14

five days after plaintiffs provide written notice to defendants that plaintiffs do not intend to file a

15

consolidated amended complaint; or (3) as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee

16

court; provided, however, that in the event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date

17

or if otherwise required to respond at an earlier date in any of these cases, Carrier IQ will respond

18

to the complaint in the above-captioned action on that earlier date;

19

WHEREAS plaintiffs further agree that this extension is available, without further

20

stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs, to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of

21

their intention to join this Stipulation;

22

WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ of any defense,

23

including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter

24

jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process or service of process;

25

WHEREAS, with respect to any defendant joining the Stipulation, this Stipulation does

26

not constitute a waiver of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of

27

personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or

28

service of process; and
STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR
DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

2

CV-11-05975-EJD

1

WHEREAS, plaintiffs and defendant Carrier IQ, as well as any defendant joining this

2

Stipulation, agree that preservation of evidence in the CIQ cases is vital, that defendants have

3

received litigation hold letters, that they are complying with and will continue to comply with all

4

of their evidence preservation obligations under governing law, and that that the delay brought

5

about by this Stipulation should not result in the loss of any evidence,

6

Now, therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, plaintiffs in the above-referenced case

7

and defendant Carrier IQ, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as

8

follows:

9

1. The deadline for Carrier IQ to answer, move, or otherwise respond to plaintiffs’

MOUNTAIN VIEW

of a consolidated amended complaint in these cases; or forty-five days after plaintiffs provide

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: forty-five days after the filing

11
F ENWICK & W EST LLP

10

written notice to defendant Carrier IQ that plaintiffs do not intend to file a Consolidated Amended

13

Complaint; or as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court; provided,

14

however, that in the event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date or if otherwise

15

required to respond at an earlier date in any of these cases, except by court order specifying a

16

different sequence of responsive pleading, Carrier IQ will respond to the complaint in the above-

17

captioned case on that earlier date.

18

2. This extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs,

19

to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of their intention to join this Stipulation;

20

3. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ or any other named

21

defendant joining the Stipulation of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack

22

of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or

23

service of process.

24

4. As a condition of entry into this Stipulation, defendant Carrier IQ and any other

25

defendant(s) joining this Stipulation, and the plaintiffs, agree that they are complying with and

26

will continue to comply with all evidentiary preservation obligations under governing law.

27
28
STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR
DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

3

CV-11-05975-EJD

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2

DATED: December 30, 2011

3

KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
By /s/ Behram V. Parekh
Michael Louis Kelly - State Bar No. 82063
[e-mail]
Behram V. Parekh - State Bar No. 180361

4
5

[e-mail]

6

Heather M. Peterson - State Bar No. 261303
[e-mail]
2361 Rosecrans Avenue
Fourth Floor
EI Segundo, California 90245
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

FENWICK & WEST LLP

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12

By /s/ Tyler G. Newby
Tyler G. Newby (CSB No. 205790)
[e-mail]
Jennifer J. Johnson (CSB No. 252897)
[e-mail]
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Ph: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

13
14
15
16
17
18

23

Rodger R. Cole (CSB NO. 178865)
[e-mail]
Molly R. Melcher (CSB NO. 272950)
[e-mail]
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Ph: 650.988.8500
Fax: [phone]

24

Attorneys for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc.

19
20
21
22

25
26
27
28
STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR
DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

4

CV-11-05975-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 Behram V. Parekh has concurred in this filing.

6
DATED: December 30, 2011
7
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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

11

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12
13
25143/00401/DOCS/2572059.1

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

5

CV-11-05975-EJD

1
2
3
4
5

RODGER R. COLE (CSB No. 178865)
[e-mail]
MOLLY R. MELCHER (CSB No. 272950)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.938.5200

6
7
8
9
10
11

TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER J. JOHNSON (CSB No. 252897)
[e-mail]
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.281.1350
Attorneys for Defendant
Carrier IQ, Inc.

MOUNTAIN VIEW

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

F ENWICK & W EST LLP

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN JOSE DIVISION

15

17

LINDSAY PADILLA, ELIEZER PILOWSKY,
and STEVEN WATTS, on behalf of themselves
and ALL others similarly situated,

18

Plaintiffs,

16

v.

19
20

Case No.: CV-11-05975-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., a Delaware Corporation,
and Does 1 to 10, inclusive,

21

Defendants.

22
23
Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

January 4, 2012
Honorable Edward J. Davila
United States District Judge

26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER

CV-11-05975-EJD