The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Edward J. Davila United States District Judge
RODGER R. COLE (CSB No. 178865) ** E-filed January 9, 2012 ** firstname.lastname@example.org 2 MOLLY R. MELCHER (CSB No. 272950) email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org JENNIFER J. JOHNSON (CSB No. 252897) 8 email@example.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.
STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TORESPOND 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 2 or has been embedded (collectively, including the above-captioned matter, the "CIQ cases"); 3 4 transfer the CIQ cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings 5 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, responses to the motion supporting coordination or 6 consolidation have been filed, and plaintiffs and defendants anticipate that additional responses 7 will be filed; 8 9 complaints in the CIQ cases; 10 11 any response to the pleadings in the CIQ cases would be more efficient for the parties and for the 12
WHEREAS plaintiffs agree that the deadline for defendant Carrier IQ to answer, move, or otherwise respond to their complain 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 17 consolidated amended complaint; or (3) as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee 18 court; provided, however, that in the event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date 19 in any of these cases, Carrier IQ will respond to the complaint in the above-captioned action on 20 that earlier date; 21 22 stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs, to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of 23 their intention to join this Stipulation; and the court 24 25 including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter 26 jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process or service of process; 27 28 not constitute a waiver of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of STIP RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR DEF. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 2 CV-11-06279
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
t shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: (1)
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 personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or 2 service of process; and 3 Stipulation, agree that preservation of evidence in the CIQ cases is vital, that defendants have 5 received litigation hold letters, that they are complying with and will continue to comply with all 6 of their evidence preservation obligations under governing law, and that that the delay brought 7 about by this Stipulation should not result in the loss of any evidence, 8
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 9 and defendant Carrier IQ, by and through their ...