Zard v. Groupon, Inc.

Filing 6

STIPULATION to Extend Time by Groupon, Inc., Brian Zard. (Bona, Jarod)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Brian Zard, on behalf of himself
and other individuals similarly situated,

Civil Action No.:11-cv-00605 PAM/FLN

Plaintiff,
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
v.
Groupon, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.

The undersigned parties through their respective attorneys hereby stipulate and
agree as follows:
1.

On or about March 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court against

Groupon, Inc.
2.

On or about March 15, 2011, Groupon was served with the Complaint.

3.

On or about March 11, 2011, plaintiffs in two other actions against

Groupon1 filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) a motion to
transfer this case, along with eight other cases to the Northern District of California
(“MDL Motion”).

1

Ferreira v. Groupon, Inc., No.-11-cv-0132-DMS(POR) (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 21, 2011)
and Gosling v. Groupon, Inc., No. 11-cv-01038-CRB (N.D. Cal. filed March 4, 2011).
EAST\44461872.1

4.

On March 24, 2011, the parties entered into a stipulation to extend the time

for Groupon to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to May 5, 2011. This
Court signed an order approving that stipulation on March 28, 2011.
5.

On April 4, 2011, Plaintiff Brian Zard filed a motion with the JPML joining

the MDL Motion to transfer the actions against Groupon to the Northern District of
California for consolidated pretrial proceedings.
6.

Also on April 4, 2011, Groupon, along with other defendants, filed a

Response with the JPML, agreeing that the actions should be consolidated, but stating
that the Southern District of California is the most appropriate forum for transfer.
7.

The parties understand that the JPML will hear the MDL Motion on May

16, 2011.
8.

Extending Groupon’s response date until after the JPML panel rules on the

MDL Motion will promote judicial economy, eliminate the potential for conflicting
pretrial rulings, and limit unnecessary party expenses and burdens. See Calder v. A.O.
Smith Corp., No. Civ. 04-1481 JRT/AJB, 2004 WL 1469370, at *1 (D. Minn. June 1,
2004) (granting stay pending the JPML’s decision to transfer the case because
“[d]eference to the MDL court for resolution of these matters provides the opportunity
for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the
multidistrict litigation system.”).

EAST\44461872.1

2

9.
For these reasons, the parties hereby stipulate and agree that Groupon’s
time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint shall be extended until (i) 45 days
after the filing of a Consolidated Amended Complaint or whatever other deadline is set
by the transferee court, in the event the JPML grants the MDL Motion, or (ii) 45 days
after service of the JPML’s decision on the MDL Motion to consolidate or whatever
deadline is set by this Court, in the event the JPML denies the MDL Motion to
consolidate.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Date: April 6, 2011

By: s/Myles A. Schneider
Myles A. Schneider, Bar No. 305479
MYLES A. SCHNEIDER & ASSOC., LTD.
710 Dodge Avenue NW, Suite A
Elk River, MN 55330
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Andrew S. Friedman
Elaine A. Ryan
Patricia N. Syverson
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
& BALINT, P.C.
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Todd D. Carpenter
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
& BALINT, P.C.
600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Brian Zard

EAST\44461872.1

3

Date: April 6, 2011

By: s/Jarod M. Bona
Jarod M. Bona, Bar No. 388860
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
90 South Seventh Street, Suite 5100
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Shirli F. Weiss
Christopher M. Young
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Groupon, Inc.

EAST\44461872.1

4