Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc

Filing 49

ORDER re Parties' 47 Stipulated MOTION to Stay Case Pending Anti-SLAPP Appeal. The case is stayed in its entirety pending resolution of ZoomInfo's anti-SLAPP appeal within seven calendar days of the Ninth Circuit's resolution of that appeal. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SB)

Case 3:21-cv-05725-MJP Document 49 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 4
1

THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

9
10
11

KIM CARTER MARTINEZ, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES INC., a
Delaware corporation

15
16

Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-05725-MJP
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
TO STAY CASE PENDING ANTI-SLAPP
APPEAL
NOTING DATE: May 5, 2022

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22

This stipulated motion is made by and between Defendant ZoomInfo Technologies Inc.
and Plaintiff Kim Carter Martinez through their respective counsel of record.
1.

Whereas, Plaintiff filed this action on September 30, 2021, alleging ZoomInfo

violated her statutory and common-law right of publicity under California law. ECF No. 1.
2.

Whereas, on December 8, 2021, ZoomInfo moved to strike each cause of action in

23

Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute on the grounds that her suit

24

challenges speech concerning a matter of public concern. ECF No. 19.

25
26
27
28

3.

Whereas, on April 11, 2022, the Court denied ZoomInfo’s anti-SLAPP motion.

ECF No. 39.
4.

Whereas, on April 14, 2022, ZoomInfo appealed the Court’s order denying its anti-

SLAPP motion. ECF No. 40.
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING ANTISLAPP APPEAL
(3:21-CV-05725-MJP)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 210
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
[phone]

Case 3:21-cv-05725-MJP Document 49 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 4
1

5.

Whereas, following the Court’s denial of ZoomInfo’s motion, ZoomInfo informed

2

Plaintiff that it intended to move for a stay pending appeal on the grounds that (1) the appeal has

3

divested the Court of jurisdiction and (2) California’s automatic stay provision must be applied

4

where, as here, the Court is sitting in diversity. See, e.g., Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine

5

Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (filing notice of appeal “divest[s] [the Court] of

6

jurisdiction over the matters being appealed”); Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 2011 WL 613571,

7

at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (“[u]nder California law, an appeal of a denial of an anti-SLAPP

8

motion automatically stays further trial court proceedings on causes of action related to the

9

motion”).

10

6.

Whereas, the parties met and conferred regarding ZoomInfo’s anticipated motion

11

to stay and Plaintiff agreed to stipulate to ZoomInfo’s requested stay and to file a joint status report

12

within seven calendar days of the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of that appeal.

13

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request an Order staying this case in its entirety

14

pending resolution of ZoomInfo’s anti-SLAPP appeal within seven calendar days of the Ninth

15

Circuit’s resolution of that appeal.

16

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING ANTISLAPP APPEAL
(3:21-CV-05725-MJP)- 2

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 210
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
[phone]

Case 3:21-cv-05725-MJP Document 49 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 4
1
2

DATED May 10, 2022.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP

/s/ Samuel J. Strauss
Samuel J. Strauss, WSBA #46971
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]

/s/ Alicia Cobb
Alicia Cobb, WSBA #48685
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, Washington 98101
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Raina Borrelli (pro hac vice)
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Phone [phone]
[e-mail]
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
Benjamin Osborn (pro hac vice)
102 Bergen St.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
LITIGATION GROUP
Michael F. Ram (pro hac vice)
Marie N. Appel (Pro Hac Vice)
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: [phone]
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Shon Morgan (Pro Hac Vice)
John W. Baumann (Pro Hac Vice)
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Cristina A. Henriquez (Pro Hac Vice)
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant ZoomInfo
Technologies Inc.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING ANTISLAPP APPEAL
(3:21-CV-05725-MJP)- 3

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 210
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
[phone]

Case 3:21-cv-05725-MJP Document 49 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 4
1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of May, 2022.

4

A
Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING ANTISLAPP APPEAL
(3:21-CV-05725-MJP)- 4

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 210
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
[phone]