Silvera et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al, No. 5:2011cv05821 - Document 31 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Extension of Time for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. to Respond to Complaint re 29 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/29/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Silvera et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al 1 Doc. 31 3 4 5 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 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 STEVEN J. SKIKOS (SBN 148110) sskikos@skikoscrawford.com MARK G. CRAWFOD (SBN 136501) mcrawford@skikoscrawford.com SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, SKIKOS & JOSEPH LLP 625 Market Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 546-7300 Facsimile: (415) 546-7301 TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790) tnewby@fenwick.com JENNIFER J. JOHNSON (CSB No. 252897) jjjohnson@fenwick.com FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.875.2300 Facsimile: 415.281.1350 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Additional counsel listed on signature page Attorneys for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN JOSE DIVISION 16 18 ROWENA SILVERA and ANDREW SANDERS, Individually, and on Behalf of all Similarly Situated Persons, 19 Plaintiffs, 17 20 v. 21 CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD STIPULATION RE: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT CARRIER IQ, INC. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CARRIER IQ, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., HTC AMERICA INC., AT&T, INC. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., JOHN DOE MANUFACTURERS (1-10), JOHN DOE CARRIERS (1-10), 22 23 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD Dockets.Justia.com 1 WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs filed the above-captioned case; 2 3 WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs allege violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and other laws by the defendants in this case; 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS over 50 other complaints have been filed to-date in federal district courts throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf of cellular telephone and other device users on whose devices software made by defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. is or has been embedded (collectively, including the above-captioned matter, the “CIQ cases”); WHEREAS, a motion is pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the CIQ cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, and responses to the motion supporting coordination or consolidation have been filed; WHEREAS plaintiffs anticipate the possibility of one or more consolidated amended complaints in the CIQ cases; WHEREAS plaintiffs 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 Court; WHEREAS plaintiffs agree 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) 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 consolidated amended complaint; or (3) as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court; provided, however, that in the event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date in any of these cases, Carrier IQ will respond to the complaint in the abovecaptioned action on that earlier date; WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter 28 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT -2- CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD 1 jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process or service of process; 2 3 4 5 WHEREAS, this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by plaintiffs to move for a preliminary injunction, motion for expedited discovery or any other pre-answer motion against Carrier IQ or any other defendant, and Carrier IQ agrees that this Stipulation shall not be the basis for objection to said motions; and 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ of any defense or objection to any motion for a preliminary injunction, motion for expedited discovery or any other pre-answer motion filed by plaintiffs, including but not limited to moving to stay the action; and WHEREAS, plaintiffs and defendant Carrier IQ, agree that preservation of evidence in the CIQ cases is vital, that defendants have received litigation hold letters, that they are complying with and will continue to comply with all of their evidence preservation obligations under governing law, and that that the delay brought about by this Stipulation should not result in the loss of any evidence, Now, therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, plaintiffs in the abovereferenced case and defendant Carrier IQ, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. The deadline for Carrier IQ to answer, move, or otherwise respond to plaintiffs’ complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in these cases; or fortyfive days after plaintiffs provide written notice to defendant Carrier IQ that plaintiffs do not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint; or as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court; provided, however, that in the event that Carrier IQ should agree to an earlier response date in any of these cases, except by court order, Carrier IQ will respond to the complaint in the abovecaptioned case on that earlier date. 27 28 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT -3- CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Carrier IQ of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or service of process. 3. As a condition of entry into this Stipulation, defendant Carrier IQ and the plaintiffs, agree that they are complying with and will continue to comply with all evidentiary preservation obligations under governing law. IT IS SO STIPULATED. 8 9 10 DATED: December 28, 2011 SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, SKIKOS & JOSEPH LLP 11 12 13 14 By: /s/ Mark G. Crawford Steven J. Skikos Mark G. Crawford 15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 DATED: December 28, 2011 FENWICK & WEST LLP 17 18 By: /s/ Tyler G. Newby Tyler G. Newby 19 Attorneys for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT -4- CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD 1 Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs: 2 HERMAN GEREL LLP 3 Maury A. Herman mherman@hhkc.com 820 O’Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Facsimile: (501) 561-6024 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Christopher V. Tisi cvtisi@aol.com 2000 L Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 783-6400 Facsimile: (202) 416-6392 Andrea S. Hirsch ahirsch@hermangerel.com 230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2260 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 880-9500 Facsimile: (404) 880-9605 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT -5- CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD 2 3 4 5 STEVEN J. SKIKOS (SBN 148110) sskikos@skikoscrawford.com MARK G. CRAWFOD (SBN 136501) mcrawford@skikoscrawford.com SKIKOS, CRAWFORD, SKIKOS & JOSEPH LLP 625 Market Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 546-7300 Facsimile: (415) 546-7301 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 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1 TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790) tnewby@fenwick.com JENNIFER J. JOHNSON (CSB No. 252897) jjjohnson@fenwick.com FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415.875.2300 Facsimile: 415.281.1350 6 7 8 9 10 11 MOUNTAIN VIEW ATTORNEYS AT LAW F ENWICK & W EST LLP 12 Additional counsel listed on signature page Attorneys for Defendant Carrier IQ, Inc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN JOSE DIVISION 16 18 ROWENA SILVERA and ANDREW SANDERS, Individually and On Behalf of all Similarly Situated Persons, 19 Plaintiffs, 17 20 21 22 23 24 v. Case No.: CV-11-05821-EJD [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CARRIER IQ, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., HTC AMERICA INC, AT&T, INC., SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., JOHN DOE MANUFACTURERS (1-10), JOHN DOE CARRIERS (1-10), Defendants. 25 26 27 Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED. Dated: December 29, 2011 Honorable Edward J. Davila United States District Judge 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER CV-11-05821-EJD 1 CERTIFICATION 2 I, Tyler G. Newby, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being 3 used to file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF 4 TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. In compliance with General 5 Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Mark G. Crawford has concurred in this filing. 6 7 DATED: December 28, 2011 8 9 10 By /s/ Tyler G. Newby TYLER G. NEWBY (CSB No. 205790) FENWICK & WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Ph: (415) 875-2300 Fax: (415) 281-1350 tnewby@fenwick.com 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT -6- CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
