FRANCISCO ESPITIA, VANESSA ZENDEJAS, and JOE A. SANCHEZ FRAIRE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
HIPSTER, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Defendant.
David C. Parisi, Esq. (162248), Suzanne Havens Beckman (188814), PARISI & HAVENS LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA.
Joseph H. Malley (not admitted), LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, Dallas, TX.
Alan Himmelfarb (90480), THE LAW OFFICES OF ALAN HIMMELFARB, Sierra Madre, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
PLAINTIFFS' STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE: ORDER
LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.
Francisco Espitia ("Espitia"), Vanessa Zendejas ("Zendejas"), and Joe A Sanchez ("Sanchez"), collectively ("Plaintiffs") hereby respectfully submit this Status Report and Request to Continue Status Conference in advance of the currently scheduled conference and in light of the Administrative Motion to relate this matter pending in Opperman v. Path, Inc. et al., Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST (" Opperman "). On March 29, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the Executed Return of Service upon Defendant Hipster, Inc. Dkt. No. 6. However, to date, Defendant Hipster has not contacted Plaintiffs nor otherwise made an appearance in this matter. Accordingly, this statement is filed unilaterally.
On July 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed with this Court a Notice of Related Case advising the Court of similar matters currently pending in this district. Dkt. 12. In response, the Court advised Plaintiffs to file an Administrative Motion pursuant to Local Rule 3-12 should they choose to do so and continued the July Case Management Conference. Dkt. 13. On August 9, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion for a determination of whether this matter should be related to Opperman and its previously related actions, Gutierrez v. Instagram, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-06550-JST (" Gutierrez "), Hernandez v. Path, Inc., No. 12-cv-01515-JST (" Hernandez "); and Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-cv-01529-JST (" Pirozzi "), collectively ("the Related Actions") under Local Rule 3-12. See Dkt. No. 356 in Opperman, Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST. The Opperman Court has not yet ruled. Given that the Administrative Motion is ...