Cullan and Cullan LLC v. M-Qube et al

Filing 146

ORDER granting 145 Motion to Extend. Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/29/2015 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 7, Roman L. Hruska Federal Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, NE before Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. Planning Conference set for 10/29/2015 at 10:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (MBM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CULLAN AND CULLAN LLC,
Plaintiff and
Counter-Defendant,

8:13CV172

vs.
M-QUBE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant and
Counter-Plaintiff,

AMENDED
ORDER FOR INITIAL
PROGRESSION OF CASE

and
MOBILE MESSENGER AMERICAS,
Inc., a Delaware corporation;
CF ENTERPRISES PTY., LTD., an
Australian company; and
JOHN DOES 1-200,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of
Briefing Deadlines and for Continuance of Hearing Date (Filing No. 145). The motion is
granted as set forth below.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Certifying Class Actions. Any motion to certify this case as a class
action shall be filed on or before August 13, 2015. Such motion shall contain a
detailed statement identifying the class(es) and subclass(es) for which certification is
sought, detailing the facts upon which satisfaction of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) is asserted, including but not limited to:
a.
statements of class numerosity beyond mere speculation; the
geographic location of the class members; statements of numerosity of all
subclasses beyond mere speculation; the geographic location of the subclass
members; and a statement of the notice plaintiff would give the class and
subclass members and the method for achieving such notice;
b.
an analysis of commonality of questions of law or fact; and
statements of whether the claims of the class members are within the periphery
of the claims raised by the named plaintiff;
c.
an analysis of typicality of claims between the class representative
and class members; statements demonstrating similarities of grievances between
the class representative and class members; and an analysis of similarity of legal
theories despite any factual differences among class member’ claims and the
claims of the class representative;

d.
an analysis of the adequacy of the class representative and
adequacy of counsel for the representative to represent the interests of the class
members; an analysis of whether the interests of the named representative is coextensive with the interests of the other members of the class; and an analysis of
whether the interests of the representative is antagonistic in any way to the
interests they represent.
e.
The movant shall also state the facts upon which satisfaction of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) is asserted, including but not limited to an analysis of which
subdivision of Rule 23(b) is most appropriate for certification of the proposed
class; an analysis of whether dividing the class into subclasses of those seeking
injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief is appropriate; and statements of the
proposed notice plaintiff would give to the class members should the court find
certain class members should be given the opportunity to opt out of the class and
when such opt out election should be made.
2.
On or before September 11, 2015, the defendants shall file and serve
any objections to class certification specifying with particularity the factual and legal
basis of the objections and identifying any facts in which an evidentiary dispute exists.
3.
On October 29, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., an evidentiary hearing will be held
before the undersigned magistrate judge in Courtroom No. 7, Second Floor, Roman L.
Hruska, U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska, to consider all
questions coming within the class action issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). At
the hearing to be conducted on October 29, 2015, the parties may present extracts of
depositions, interrogatories, and documentary evidence relevant to any factual dispute,
and only upon a showing of good cause will a party be permitted to call a witness to
testify in person at the hearing.
4.
Planning Conference. A conference with the undersigned magistrate
judge will be held following the class certification hearing on October 29, 2015, for the
purpose of reviewing the preparation of the case to date and the scheduling of the case
to trial. Prior to the conference, counsel for the parties shall have:
a.
b.
c.
d.

e.
f.

Disclosed the names, addresses, and affiliations with any party of
all non-expert witnesses;
Disclosed at least the names and addresses of all expert witnesses
expected to testify for that party at trial;
Completed a conference with opposing counsel concerning
outstanding discovery disputes as required by NECivR 7.1(i);
Discussed with opposing counsel plans for completing the
depositions of expert witnesses and other remaining discovery and
the filing of motions for summary judgment;
Discussed the necessity for any amendment of the pleadings or the
necessity of adding additional parties.
Exchanged genuine and serious proposals for settlement;

2

g.

h.

Discussed settlement with clients and the viability of mediation or
other forms of alternative dispute resolution as may be applicable to
this case; and
Discussed with opposing counsel any other matters which may
influence the setting of this case for trial.

5.
Motions to alter dates. All requests for changes of deadlines established
by this order shall made by appropriate motion.
6.
The provisions of the earlier progression order remain to the extent they
do not conflict with this order.
Dated this 5th day of May, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge

3