Kim v. Coach, Inc, et al

Filing 51

AMENDMENT (Defendants' Amended Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Class Allegations) to 50 Reply to Response to Motion,, by Defendants Coach Services Inc, Coach, Inc., Counter Claimant Coach, Inc.. (Keehnel, Stellman)

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

GINA KIM, on behalf of a class consisting
of herself and all other persons similarly
situated,

12
13
14
15

v.

Plaintiffs, and as to Ms.
Kim, counterclaim
defendant,

NO. 2:11-cv-00214-RSM
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
MAY 6, 2011

COACH, INC., a Maryland corporation,
and COACH SERVICES, INC., a
Maryland corporation,

16
17
18

Defendants, and, as to
Coach, Inc., counterclaim
plaintiff.

19
20

Defendants Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. (together, “Coach”) hereby submit this

21

reply in support of their motion to strike class allegations filed on April 14, 2011. (Dkt.

22

No. 42.) On May 2, 2011, counsel for plaintiff and former putative class representative Gina

23

Kim filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to strike class allegations. (Dkt. No. 48.)

24

Accordingly, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(d)(1)(D), the motion to strike class allegations must be

25

granted and the class allegations must be stricken from the second amended complaint (Dkt.

26

No. 20-1). (Coach’s Reply (Dkt. No. 50) erroneously referred to the first amended complaint.)
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS - 1
NO. 2:11-cv-00214-RSM

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 | Tel: [phone]

1

On March 22, 2011, Ms. Kim and Coach, Inc. filed a stipulation to permit counsel for

2

Ms. Kim to file a second amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). (Dkt. No. 20.)

3

Coach Services, Inc. hereby submits its consent to the entry of the second amended complaint

4

under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2), and Coach, Inc. hereby reiterates its consent. The Court should

5

therefore enter an order (1) stating that the stipulated and Court-accepted second amended

6

complaint is the operative complaint to which defendants’ motion to strike class allegations is

7

directed, and (2) stating that the class allegations in the second amended complaint are stricken

8

and the lawsuit shall proceed not as a class action.

9
10
11

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of May, 2011.
DLA Piper LLP (US)

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

By: s/ Stellman Keehnel
Stellman Keehnel, WSBA No. 9309
R. Omar Riojas, WSBA No. 35400
Patrick Eagan, WSBA No. 42679
DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for defendant and counterclaim plaintiff
Coach, Inc. and defendant Coach Services, Inc.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS - 2
NO. 2:11-cv-00214-RSM

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 | Tel: [phone]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2

I hereby certify that on May 6, 2011, I caused to be electronically filed the foregoing

3

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such

4

filing to all counsel of record.

5

Dated this 6th day of May, 2011.

6
s/ Stellman Keehnel
Stellman Keehnel, WSBA No. 9309

7
8
9

WEST\223419679.2

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS - 3
NO. 2:11-cv-00214-RSM

DLA Piper LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
Seattle, WA 98104-7044 | Tel: [phone]