United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
JUSTIN BAKER-RHETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
ASPIRO AB, a Swedish limited liability company, and KANYE WEST, an individual, together d/b/a TIDAL, Defendants.
Baker-Rhett, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Logan, Edelson
West, doing business as Tidal, Defendant, represented by
Andrew H. Bart, Jenner & Block LLP.
West, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Jenner &
Block LLP & Christina Avedissian, Jenner and Block LLP.
AB, Defendant, represented by Ashley Lynn Shively, Reed Smith
LLP, Robert D. Phillips, Jr., Reed Smith LLP & Thomas A.
Evans, Reed Smith LLP.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT ASPIRO AB'S MOTION TO TRANSFER
VENUE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO DISMISS. [Local Rule
JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.
to Paragraph 4 of the Judge White's Standing Civil Orders
and Northern District Local Rule 6-2, Justin Baker-Rhett
("Plaintiff") and Defendant Aspiro AB
("Aspiro") by and through their undersigned
counsel, hereby respectfully stipulate and agree, subject to
Court approval, to (1) extend Plaintiff's deadline to
respond to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, or in
the Alternative Motion to Dismiss, from July 5, 2016 to July
19, 2016, and (2) extend Defendant's deadline to reply to
Plaintiff's response from July 12, 2016 to July 26, 2016.
In support of this Stipulation, the Plaintiff and Defendant
Aspiro AB state as follows:
Defendant filed its Motion to Transfer Venue or, in the
Alternative, Motion to Dismiss on June 20, 2016;
Plaintiff believes it would be an inefficient use of the
Court's and the Parties' resources to fully brief and
argue Defendant's motion, believes that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York is an
acceptable venue for his claims, and would prefer to focus on
the merits of his case as quickly as possible;
counsel for Plaintiff conferred with counsel for Defendant
Aspiro AB on June 30, 2016 and July 5, 2016, to discuss the
possibility of a stipulated transfer of venue;
Plaintiff and Defendant Aspiro AB believe that a two-week
extension of the briefing schedule on Defendant Aspiro
AB's pending Motion will allow all Parties to come to a
stipulated agreement regarding the appropriate venue (or
venues) for this lawsuit;
just two other time modifications have been made in this
case: first, Defendants' time to answer or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff's Corrected First Amended Class
Action Complaint ("Complaint") was extended from
May 29, 2016 to June 20, 2016 (dkt. 10), and, second,
Defendant Kanye West's deadline to respond to
Plaintiff's Complaint was again extended from June 20,
2016 to July 6, 2016, (dkt. 17);
this proposed change will not alter the date of any other
event or any deadline already fixed by Court order;
THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant Aspiro AB hereby STIPULATE
and AGREE as ...