Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lindsay Padilla, Eliezer Pilowsky, and v. Carrier Iq

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


January 4, 2012

LINDSAY PADILLA, ELIEZER PILOWSKY, AND STEVEN WATTS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CARRIER IQ, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Edward J. Davila United States District Judge

STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs filed the above-captioned case;

WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs allege violations of the Federal Wiretap Act 25 and other laws by the defendants in this case; 26

WHEREAS over 50 other complaints have been filed to-date in federal district courts 27 throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf of cellular 28 telephone and other device users on whose devices software made by defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. is

or has been embedded (collectively, including the above-captioned matter, the "CIQ cases"); 2

3 transfer the CIQ cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, and responses to the motion supporting coordination or 5 consolidation have been filed; 6

7 complaints in the CIQ cases; 8

9 any response to the pleadings in the CIQ cases would be more efficient for the parties and for the 10

WHEREAS plaintiffs agree that the deadline for defendant Carrier IQ to answer, move, or

12 otherwise respond to their complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: (1)

forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in the CIQ cases; or (2) forty- five days after plaintiffs provide written notice to defendants that plaintiffs do not intend to file a

consolidated amended complaint; or (3) as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee

court; provided, however, that in the event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date 17 or if otherwise required to respond at an earlier date in any of these cases, Carrier IQ will respond 18 to the complaint in the above-captioned action on that earlier date; 19

20 stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs, to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of 21 their intention to join this Stipulation; 22

23 including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter 24 jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process or service of process; 25

26 not constitute a waiver of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of 27 personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or 28 service of process; and

WHEREAS, a motion is pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to

WHEREAS plaintiffs anticipate the possibility of one or more consolidated amended

WHEREAS plaintiffs and defendant Carrier IQ have agreed that an orderly schedule for Court; 11

WHEREAS plaintiffs further agree that this extension is available, without further

WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ of any defense,

WHEREAS, with respect to any defendant joining the Stipulation, this Stipulation does

Stipulation, agree that preservation of evidence in the CIQ cases is vital, that defendants have 3 received litigation hold letters, that they are complying with and will continue to comply with all 4 of their evidence preservation obligations under governing law, and that that the delay brought 5 about by this Stipulation should not result in the loss of any evidence, 6

7 and defendant Carrier IQ, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as 8 follows: 9

10 complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: forty-five days after the filing 11 of a consolidated amended complaint in these cases; or forty-five days after plaintiffs provide 12 written notice to defendant Carrier IQ that plaintiffs do not intend to file a Consolidated Amended

Complaint; or as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court; provided,

however, that in the event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date or if otherwise

required to respond at an earlier date in any of these cases, except by court order specifying a

different sequence of responsive pleading, Carrier IQ will respond to the complaint in the above-17 captioned case on that earlier date. 18

2. This extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs,

19 to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of their intention to join this Stipulation; 20

3. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ or any other named

21 defendant joining the Stipulation of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack 22 of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or 23 service of process. 24

25 defendant(s) joining this Stipulation, and the plaintiffs, agree that they are complying with and 26 will continue to comply with all evidentiary preservation obligations under governing law. 27 28

WHEREAS, plaintiffs and defendant Carrier IQ, as well as any defendant joining this

Now, therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, plaintiffs in the above-referenced case

1. The deadline for Carrier IQ to answer, move, or otherwise respond to plaintiffs'

4. As a condition of entry into this Stipulation, defendant Carrier IQ and any other IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: December 30, 2011 KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP By /s/ Behram V. Parekh Michael Louis Kelly - State Bar No. 82063 mlk@kirtlandpackard.com Behram V. Parekh - State Bar No. 180361 bvp@kirtlandpackard.com Heather M. Peterson - State Bar No. 261303 hmp@kirtlandpackard.com 2361 Rosecrans Avenue 8 Fourth Floor EI Segundo, California 90245 9 Telephone: (310) 536-1000 Facsimile: (310) 536-1001 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 FENWICK & WEST LLP By /s/ Tyler G. Newby Tyler G. Newby (CSB No. 205790) tnewby@fenwick.com ENWICK Jennifer J. Johnson (CSB No. 252897) jjjohnson@fenwick.com F 555 California Street, 12th Floor 16 San Francisco, CA 94104 17 Ph: (415) 875-2300 Fax: (415) 281-1350 Rodger R. Cole (CSB NO. 178865) 18 19 rcole@fenwick.com Molly R. Melcher (CSB NO. 272950) mmelcher@fenwick.com Silicon Valley Center 20 21 801 California Street 22 Mountain View, CA 94041 Ph: 650.988.8500 23 Fax: 650.938.5200 24 Attorneys for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc.

CERTIFICATION

I, Tyler G. Newby, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being

3 used to file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF 4

TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. In compliance with General 5

Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Behram V. Parekh has concurred in this filing. 6

DATED: December 30, 2011 By /s/ Tyler G. Newby TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790) FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor 9 San Francisco, CA 94104 Ph: (415) 875-2300 10 Fax: (415) 281-1350 tnewby@fenwick.com RODGER R. COLE (CSB No. 178865) rcole@fenwick.com 2 MOLLY R. MELCHER (CSB No. 272950) mmelcher@fenwick.com 3 FENWICK & WEST LLP Silicon Valley Center 4 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 5 Telephone: 650.988.8500 Facsimile: 650.938.5200 6 TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790) 7 tnewby@fenwick.com JENNIFER J. JOHNSON (CSB No. 252897) 8 jjjohnson@fenwick.com 555 California Street, 12th Floor 9 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.875.2300 10 Facsimile: 415.281.1350 11 Attorneys for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

LINDSAY PADILLA, ELIEZER PILOWSKY, Case No.: CV-11-05975-EJD and STEVEN WATTS, on behalf of themselves 17 and ALL others similarly situated, 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. 20 CARRIER IQ, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, 21 Defendants.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED.

20120104

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.