The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jeremy Fogel
SUBSEQUENT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT; STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Date: May 13, 2011 Time: 10:30 a.m. th Place: Courtroom 3, 5 Floor
Plaintiff Juvenal Robles and Defendant Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. ("Lucky Brand"), by and through their counsel, respectfully submit the following subsequent joint 3 case management statement and stipulation to continue the case management conference 4 presently set for May 13, 2011:
1. Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint on October 26, 2010, alleging 6defendant Lucky Brand violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, by sending an allegedly unsolicited text message to plaintiff's cellular telephone in the summer of 2008. (Dkt. No. 1.)
2. Lucky Brand answered the complaint on January 10, 2011, alleging, among 10 other things, various defenses that included issues involving consent, authorization, and other elements of plaintiff's statutory claims. (Dkt. No. 15.)
3. On January 21, 2011, the Court held a case scheduling conference and ordered 13 the parties to participate in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Lloyd and to 14 return and report the result of that conference to the Court on March 4, 2011. (See Dkt. No. 15
4. On February 24, 2011, the Court granted the parties' Stipulation to continue 17 the March 4, 2011 status hearing until April 15, 2011, so discovery related to third parties 18 potentially involved in the text message promotional campaign at issue in the Complaint 19 could be evaluated and to arrange the attendance of these third parties at the settlement 20 conference. (Dkt. 24.)
5. On April 13, 2011, the Court again granted the parties' Stipulation to continue 22 the case management conference until after the parties completed the settlement conference 23 with Magistrate Judge Lloyd. (Dkt. 31.)
Promotion, Merkle, Inc., and Take Solutions, LLC, and certain insurers participated in a 26 settlement conference with Judge Lloyd. At the settlement conference, Plaintiff, Defendant, 27 the third parties, and insurers candidly discussed their various positions about the litigation 28 and settlement. During these discussions, it was determined that limited focused discovery18.)
6. On April 29, 2011, Plaintiff, Defendant, third parties Lime Public Relations 25 or information was required to continue productive discussions toward resolution. Upon the recommendation of Judge Lloyd, Plaintiff, Defendant, the third parties, and insurers agreed to return for a further settlement conference on June 23, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. (See Dkt. 32.)
Plaintiff is currently in the process of diligently obtaining from additional third parties the 5 discovery and information needed to proceed with discussions of resolution at the further 6 settlement conference with Judge Lloyd.
7. The parties, therefore, respectfully request the Court continue the May 13th Case Scheduling Conference to June 24, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. or to any date thereafter that is 9 convenient to the Court.