American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 92

MOTION to Join Travelport's Motion to Stay (), MOTION to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants' Separate Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (Yates, Christopher)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SABRE, INC., a Delaware corporation;
SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation and SABRE
TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL LTD., a
foreign corporation, d/b/a SABRE TRAVEL
NETWORK
TRAVELPORT LIMITED, a foreign
corporation, and TRAVELPORT, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership, d/b/a
TRAVELPORT;
and
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, d/b/a ORBITZ,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00244-Y

JOINDER BY DEFENDANT ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC TO TRAVELPORT’S
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING A DECISION ON TRAVELPORT’S
RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS, AND ORBITZ’S MOTION TO STAY
DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS SEPARATE RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION
TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (“Orbitz”) hereby joins defendants Travelport
Limited and Travelport, LP’s (collectively, “Travelport”) Motion to Stay Discovery Pending a
Decision on Travelport’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
(Docket No. 88). Orbitz also respectfully moves this Court to stay discovery pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) until the Court rules on Orbitz’s separate Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff American Airline’s First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 77).
For the reasons set forth in Travelport’s Motion to Stay, and Memorandum in Support
thereof, a stay of discovery pending resolution of Orbitz’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is
also warranted. In further support of its motion, Orbitz states that, during the parties’ Rule 26(f)
conference today, American’s counsel acknowledged that it would not be seeking any type of
preliminary injunction against Orbitz. Accordingly, Orbitz respectfully submits that there is no
need to engage in what will undoubtedly be expensive discovery until the Court has ruled on
whether American’s claims against Orbitz may proceed.
In order to avoid burdening the Court with repetitive argument, Orbitz hereby adopts in
full the arguments and authorities in Travelport’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Stay
(Docket No. 89).
DATED:

July 5, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Christopher S. Yates
Christopher S. Yates (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
California State Bar No. 161273
Email: [e-mail]
Daniel M. Wall (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
California State Bar No. 102580
Email: [e-mail]
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
and

1

John J. Little
Texas State Bar No. 12424230
Email: [e-mail]
Stephen G. Gleboff
Texas State Bar No. 08024500
Email: [e-mail]
Megan K. Dredla
Texas State Bar No. 24050530
Email: [e-mail]
LITTLE PEDERSEN FANKHAUSER LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4110
Dallas, TX 75202-3714
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On July 5, 2011, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of the
court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, using the
electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of
Electronic Filing” to the attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice
as service of this document by electronic means.

s/Christopher S. Yates
Christopher S. Yates
SF\863532

1