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.

Lawrence Regis House, Jr.; Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Carrier Iq

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


February 16, 2012

LAWRENCE REGIS HOUSE, JR.; INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CARRIER IQ, INC.; AND DOES 1-100,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

RODGER R. COLE (CSB No. 178865) rcole@fenwick.com MOLLY R. MELCHER (CSB No. 272950) mmelcher@fenwick.com FENWICK & WEST LLP Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Telephone: 650.988.8500 Facsimile: 650.938.5200 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 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.875.2300 Facsimile: 415.281.1350 Attorneys for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. LLP

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT CARRIER IQ, INC. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND FOR CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER and other laws by the defendant in this case;

5 throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring consumer privacy class actions on 6 behalf of cellular telephone and other device users on whose devices software made by defendant 7

Carrier IQ, Inc. ("Carrier IQ") is or has been embedded (collectively, including the above-8 captioned matter, the "CIQ cases"); 9

10 transfer the CIQ cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings 11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, and responses to the motion supporting coordination or 12 consolidation have been filed;

WHEREAS, the parties anticipate that one or more consolidated complaints will be filed following transfer and consolidation of the CIQ cases;

WHEREAS plaintiff and defendant Carrier IQ have agreed that an orderly schedule for any response to the pleadings in the CIQ cases would be more efficient for the parties and for the 17

WHEREAS plaintiff agrees that the deadline for defendant Carrier IQ to answer, move, or otherwise respond to their complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: (1) 20 forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in the CIQ cases in the MDL 21 transferee court; or (2) forty-five days after plaintiff provides written notice to defendants that 22 plaintiff does not intend to file a consolidated amended complaint in the MDL transferee court; or 23 (3) as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court; provided, however, that in the 24 event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date in any of these cases, Carrier IQ will 25 respond to the complaint in the above-captioned action on that earlier date; 26

WHEREAS, in light of the pending MDL Motion, the parties have agreed that the dates for ADR certification and selection, currently set for February 15, 2012, initial disclosures and the 28 filing of Rule 26(f) reports and Case Management Conference statement, currently set for

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE 2 No. 5:11cv6200-LHK (PSG)

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

WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiff alleges violations of the Federal Wiretap Act

WHEREAS over 60 other complaints have been filed to-date in federal district courts

WHEREAS, a motion is pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to TTORNEYS AT &OUNTAIN ENWICK

February 29, 2012, and the Initial Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for March 2 7, 2012, be stayed until further order from this Court, or as otherwise ordered by the MDL 3 transferee court if the MDL Motion is granted; 4

5 including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter 6 jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process or service of process; 7

CIQ cases is vital, that defendant has received litigation hold letters, that it is complying with and 9 will continue to comply with all of their evidence preservation obligations under governing law, 10 and that that the delay brought about by this Stipulation should not result in the loss of any 11 evidence; 12

and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

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

removed complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: forty-five days after

the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in the CIQ cases in the MDL transferee court; or 17 forty-five days after plaintiff provides written notice to defendant Carrier IQ that plaintiff does 18 not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the MDL transferee court; or as 19 otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court; provided, however, that in the event 20 that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date in any of these cases, except by court 21 order, Carrier IQ will respond to the complaint in the above-captioned case on that earlier date. 22

23 initial disclosures and the filing of Rule 26(f) reports and Case Management Conference 24 statement, currently set for February 29, 2012, and the Initial Case Management Conference, 25 currently scheduled for March 7, 2012, are stayed until further order from this Court, or as 26 otherwise ordered by the MDL transferee court if the MDL Motion is granted. 27 28

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE 3 No. 5:11cv6200-LHK (PSG)

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

WHEREAS plaintiff and defendant Carrier IQ agree that preservation of evidence in the Now, therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, plaintiff and defendant Carrier IQ, by

3. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ of any defense,

2 including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter 3 jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or service of process. 4

4. As a condition of entry into this Stipulation, defendant Carrier IQ and plaintiff

5 agree that they are complying with and will continue to comply with all evidentiary preservation 6 obligations under governing law. 7

LAWRENCE REGIS HOUSE, JR.; Case No.: 5:11-cv-6200-LHK (PSG) 17 individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

CARRIER IQ, INC. v. CARRIER IQ, INC.; and DOES 1-100, MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Defendants.

Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED.

20120216

© 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.