UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 30, 2012
JUVENAL ROBLES AND ABEL FIGUEROA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF 15 SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS,
LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
KIRSHENBAUM BOND SENECAL & PARTNERS LLC F/K/A THE HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY KIRSHENBAUM BOND & PARTNERS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A LIME PUBLIC RELATIONS PROMOTION, AND KIRSHENBAUM BOND & PARTNERS WEST LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
DEFENDANTS. KIRSHENBAUM BOND SENECAL & PARTNERS LLC F/K/A KIRSHENBAUM
BOND & PARTNERS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A LIME PUBLIC RELATIONS PROMOTION, AND KIRSHENBAUM BOND & PARTNERS WEST LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
MERKLE INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION,
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT AND FOURTH-PARTY PLAINTIFF.
RGAR HOLDINGS, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS TAKE 5 SOLUTIONS, LLC., A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, RICHARD GLUCK, ALEXANDER RADETICH, JOHN DOE I, AND JOHN DOE II,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge
SEAN REIS (SBN 184004) firstname.lastname@example.org 2 EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 3 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: (949) 459-2124 4 Facsimile: (949) 459-2123 5 RYAN D. ANDREWS (Pro Hac Vice) 6 email@example.com EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC 7 350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 8 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 9 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING LITIGATION PENDING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT ; DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES
Dungarees, Inc. ("Lucky"), Defendants Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal& Partners LLC, f/k/a 3 Bond & Partners West LLC (together, "Lime"), and Third-Party Defendant Merkle Inc. ("Merkle"), 5 1. Plaintiff Robles filed his Class Action Complaint on October 26, 2010, alleging Defendant Lucky violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, by sending an 8 allegedly unsolicited text message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone in the summer of 2008. (Dkt. 1.) 9 10 included issues involving consent, authorization, and other elements of Plaintiff's statutory claim.
3. On January 21, 2011, Judge Fogel held an initial case scheduling conference and 13 ordered the Parties to participate in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Lloyd and to 14 return and report on the result of that conference. (Dkt. 18.) 15
Judge Lloyd on April 29, 2011. Lime, Merkle and RGAR Holdings, LLC ("RGAR"), who were all 17 third-parties at the time, also participated in the settlement conference.At the settlement conference, 18
Plaintiff Robles, Defendant Lucky, and the third-partiescandidly discussed their various respective 19 positions about the litigation and settlement. During these discussions, it was determined that 20 limited focused discovery or information was required to continue productive discussions toward 21 resolution. Upon the recommendation of Judge Lloyd, Plaintiff Robles, Defendant Lucky, the third-22 parties, and insurers agreed to return for a further settlement conference. (See Dkt. 32.) 23 Complaint. (Dkt. 39.) The Amended Complaint alleges a single claim for violation of the TCPA, 25 under the same general allegations stated in the original Complaint, on behalf of both 26 PlaintiffRobles and Plaintiff Figueroa. The Amended Complaint also adds Lime as a named 27 defendant. 28 Plaintiffs Juvenal Robles and Abel Figueroa (together, "Plaintiffs"), Defendant Lucky Brand Kirshenbaum Bond & Partners LLC, d/b/a Lime Public Relations Promotion and Kirshenbaum 4 (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their counsel, stipulate as follows: 6 2. Lucky answered the Complaint, asserting, among other things, various defenses that (Dkt. 15.) 12
4. Plaintiff Robles and Defendant Lucky participated in a settlement conference before 16 5. Prior to the further settlement conference, Plaintiff Robles filed an Amended 2 a Third-Party Complaint against Merkle. (Dkt. 44). Merkle answered the Third-Party Complaint 3 and filed a Fourth-Party Complaint againstRGAR. (Dkts. 64, 66.) 4
September 21, 2011. The Parties were able to advance their settlement discussion during the second 6 settlement conference, but did not reach a final agreement. The Parties agreed to continue those 7 discussions in the context of a full-day mediation and, in the interim, to limit activity in the case to 8 only discovery necessary to complete mediation.The Parties thereafter scheduled a full-day 9 mediation before the Honorable Nicholas H. Politan (Ret.)in West Palm Beach, Florida and set the 10 mediation for December 8, 2011. 11 12 where the terms of a global settlement were negotiated. After a full-day mediation, the Parties 13 made further progress with the assistance of Judge Politian and at the end of the mediation session 14 Judge Politan presented a mediator's proposal, of which the Parties were to report their acceptance 15 or rejection by February 29, 2012. During the pendency of this mediator's proposal response 16 period, Judge Politan unexpectedly passed away. However, not all of the Parties ultimately 17 accepted Judge Politan's proposal. 18
Conference scheduled by the Court. During the CMC, the Parties informed the Court that 20 settlement negotiations were ongoing and that the Parties were considering returning to mediation 21 with the Honorable Eugene Lynch (Ret.). Although the Parties agreed to continue settlement 22 discussions, the Court also entered a scheduling Order setting June 4, 2012 as the deadline to amend 23 all pleadingsas well as several class certification discovery deadlines beginning in July 2012. (See 24 10. During subsequent discussions leading up tothe scheduling of the mediation with Judge Lynch, the Parties were able to reach an agreement as to all material terms of a class action 27 settlement of this matter. 28 6. Lime and Lucky answered the Amended Complaint. (Dkts. 45, 48.) Lime also filed 7. The Parties participated in a furthersettlement conference before Judge Lloyd on 5 8. On January 26, 2012, the Parties attended a formal mediation with Judge Politan 9. On March 23, 2012, counsel for the Parties attended the Joint Case Management Dkt. 83.) 25
11. The Parties anticipate that the settlement papers will be executed, and that Plaintiffswill move for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, within forty-five (45) 3 days. 4 12. The Parties therefore stipulate to staying all pending motion and discovery deadlines 2 5 in this case to allow them time to memorialize the settlement terms. 6 7
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
I, Ryan D. Andrews, am the ECF User whose identification and password
are being used to
3 file this Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Staying
Litigation Pending Class Action Settlement. In 4 compliance
with General Order 45.X.B., I hereby attest that the Counsel whose
electronic 5 signatures appear on this document have
concurred in this filing and that the same will be delivered 6
to those registered with the Court's CM/ECF system. 7
Dated: May 25, 2012 EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC By /s/ Ryan D. Andrews RYAN D. ANDREWS Attorneys for Plaintiffs JUVENAL ROBLESand ABEL FIGUEROA
Having considered the Parties'Stipulation and good cause appearing, this litigation, 3 including amended pleading deadlines, motion deadlines, and all discovery obligations, shall be 4 stayed for a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order.
The parties are directed to file, no later than July 13, 2012, a Joint Status Report, said deadline to stand vacated without further order of the Court in the event plaintiffs have filed, on or before July 13, 2012, a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.