Fischer et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al

Filing 17

STIPULATION AND ORDER 13 to Extend Time for Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC to Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh for Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 1/24/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2012)

1 LANCE A. ETCHEVERRY (STATE BAR NO. 199916)
[e-mail]
2 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
3 Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 S. SHERYL LEUNG (STATE BAR NO. 238229)
[e-mail]
6 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 1100
7 Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone: [phone]
8 Facsimile: [phone]
9 Attorneys for Defendants
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
10 SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

COLLEEN FISCHER, a Wisconsin resident;
KURT FAIRFIELD, a Wisconsin resident;
HARRY SARAFIAN, a California resident;
DAVID WILLIAMS, a California resident;
STEPHANIE WIRTH, a California resident;
JOHN SWAFFORD, a Florida resident;
LUKE SZULCZEWSKI, an Illinois resident;
RICHARD ROSENFELD, a Kentucky resident;
MICHAEL ZEMARTIS, a New Jersey resident;
TIMOTHY DODSON, a Texas resident;
EVAN BROOKS, a Washington resident;
MARCUS NEAL, a Washington resident;
BRIAN SANDSTROM, a Washington resident;
JOHN WOODS, a Washington resident;
LEONARD HOBBS, a Nevada resident; and
KENNETH TISHENKEL, an Ohio resident, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,

24
25

vs.

CARRIER IQ, INC., a Delaware corporation;
26 LG ELECTRONICS, INC., a Korean company;
LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A.,
27
INC., a California Corporation;
28 HTC CORPORATION, a Taiwanese company;

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-06199-RMW
STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF
TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND
[] ORDER EXTENDING
TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [] ORDER

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-06199-RMW

1 HTC AMERICA, INC., a Washington
corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
2 LTD., a Korean company; SAMSUNG
3 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; and SAMSUNG
4 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
5
Defendants.
6

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [] ORDER

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-06199-RMW

1

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

2

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

3 Act and other laws by the defendants in this case;
4

WHEREAS, there have been no other modifications to the time to answer, move or

5 otherwise respond to the complaint in this action with respect to claims asserted against defendants
6 Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC1 (the
7 “Samsung Defendants”);
8

WHEREAS, pursuant to an ADR Scheduling Order dated December 9, 2011, the

9 Initial Case Management Conference in the above-captioned action is scheduled for March 6,
10 2012;
11

WHEREAS, over 50 other complaints have been filed to-date in federal district

12 courts throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf of
13 cellular telephone and other device users on whose devices software made by defendant Carrier IQ,
14 Inc. is or has been embedded (collectively, including the above-captioned matter, the “CIQ cases”);
15

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

16 Litigation to transfer the CIQ cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pretrial
17 proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, and responses to the motion supporting coordination
18 or consolidation have been filed;
19

WHEREAS plaintiffs anticipate the possibility of one or more consolidated

20 amended complaints in the CIQ cases;
21

WHEREAS plaintiffs and the Samsung Defendants have agreed that an orderly

22 schedule for any response to the pleadings in the CIQ cases would be more efficient for the parties
23 and for the Court;
24

WHEREAS plaintiffs agree that the deadline for the Samsung Defendants to

25 answer, move, or otherwise respond to their complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the
26
27

1

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC was erroneously sued as Samsung
Telecommunications America, Inc.
28
1
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [] ORDER

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-06199-RMW

1 following dates: (1) forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in the CIQ
2 cases; or (2) forty-five days after plaintiffs provide written notice to defendants that plaintiffs do
3 not intend to file a consolidated amended complaint; or (3) as otherwise ordered by this Court or
4 the MDL transferee court; provided, however, that in the event that any of the Samsung Defendants
5 should agree to an earlier response date in any of these cases, that Samsung Defendant will respond
6 to the complaint in the above-captioned action on that earlier date;
7

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

8 stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs, to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of
9 their intention to join this Stipulation;
10

WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by the Samsung

11 Defendants of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal
12 jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or service of
13 process;
14

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

15 does not constitute a waiver of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of
16 personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or service
17 of process; and
18

WHEREAS, plaintiffs and the Samsung Defendants, as well as any defendant

19 joining this Stipulation, agree that preservation of evidence in the CIQ cases is vital, that
20 defendants have received litigation hold letters, that they are complying with and will continue to
21 comply with all of their evidence preservation obligations under governing law, and that the delay
22 brought about by this Stipulation should not result in the loss of any evidence.
23

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

24 case and the Samsung Defendants, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby
25 stipulate as follows:
26

1.

The deadline for the Samsung Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise

27 respond to plaintiffs’ complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: forty-five
28 days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in these cases; or forty-five days after
2
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [] ORDER

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-06199-RMW

1 plaintiffs provide written notice to the Samsung Defendants that plaintiffs do not intend to file a
2 Consolidated Amended Complaint; or as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee
3 court; provided, however, that in the event that any of the Samsung Defendants should agree to an
4 earlier response date in any of these cases, except by court order, that Samsung Defendant will
5 respond to the complaint in the above-captioned case on that earlier date.
6

2.

This extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for

7 plaintiffs, to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of their intention to join this
8 Stipulation.
9

3.

This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by the Samsung Defendants or

10 any other named defendant joining the Stipulation of any defense, including but not limited to the
11 defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of
12 process, or service of process.
13

4.

As a condition of entry into this Stipulation, the Samsung Defendants and

14 any other defendant(s) joining this Stipulation, and the plaintiffs, agree that they are complying
15 with and will continue to comply with all evidentiary preservation obligations under governing
16 law.
17

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

18

DATED: January 11, 2012

19

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

20

By:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ Thomas E. Loeser
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
[phone]
SHANA E. SCARLETT (217895)
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
3

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [] ORDER

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-06199-RMW

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
By:

/s/ Lance A. Etcheverry
Lance A. Etcheverry

300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [] ORDER

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-06199-RMW

1
2

CERTIFICATION
I, Lance A. Etcheverry, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used

3 to file this STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO
4 RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
5 RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that
6 Thomas Loeser has concurred in this filing.
7
8 DATED: January 11, 2012

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

9
10

By:

11
12

300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

13
14
15

Attorneys for Defendants
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC

16
17
18

/s/ Lance A. Etcheverry
Lance A. Etcheverry

.

19
20 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

R NIA

cy H. K

oh

FO

Judge Lu

ER

A

LI

S

UNIT
ED

By:

ED
ORDER

H

24

RT

23

IT IS SO

NO

22

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

21 Dated: _______________, 2012

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
5
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [] ORDER

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-06199-RMW