Kenny et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al, No. 5:2011cv05774 - Document 26 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Extension of Time for Defendant to Respond to Complaint as to HTC America Inc. re 24 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/21/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kenny et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al 1 2 3 4 Doc. 26 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP HENRY WEISSMANN (SBN 132418) Henry.Weissmann@mto.com 355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP ROSEMARIE T. RING (SBN 220769) Rose.Ring@mto.com JONATHAN H. BLAVIN (SBN 230269) Jonathan.Blavin@mto.com Victoria L. Boesch (SBN 228561) Victoria.Boesch@mto.com BRYAN H. HECKENLIVELY (SBN 279140) Bryan.Heckenlively@mto.com 560 Mission Street Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP STEVE W. BERMAN, pro hac vice steve@hbsslaw.com ROBERT F. LOPEZ, pro hac vice robl@hbsslaw.com THOMAS E. LOESER (SBN 202724) toml@hbsslaw.com 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP SHANA E. SCARLETT (SBN 217895) shanas@hbsslaw.com 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Patrick Kenny, Justin Sharp, Jeremy Feitelson, and Greg Feitelson and the Proposed Class Attorneys for Defendant HTC AMERICA, INC. 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SAN JOSE DIVISION 18 19 20 21 PATRICK KENNY, an Arizona resident, JUSTIN SHARP, a California resident, JEREMY FEITELSON, an Iowa resident, and GREG FEITELSON, a Kentucky resident, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 24 25 26 STIPULATION RE: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 22 23 CASE NO. CV-11-05774 EJD v. CARRIER IQ, INC., a Delaware corporation, HTC CORPORATION, a Taiwanese company; HTC AMERICA, INC., a Washington corporation; and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. a Korean company, 27 Defendants. 28 16019767.1 STIP RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT & PROPOSED ORDER CV-11-05774 EJD Dockets.Justia.com 1 WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs filed the above-captioned case; 2 WHEREAS the above-referenced plaintiffs allege violations of the Federal 3 Wiretap Act and other laws by the defendants in this case; 4 WHEREAS over 50 other complaints have been filed to-date in federal district 5 courts throughout the United States by plaintiffs purporting to bring class actions on behalf of 6 cellular telephone and other device users on whose devices software made by defendant Carrier 7 IQ, Inc. is or has been embedded (collectively, including the above-captioned matter, the “CIQ 8 cases”); 9 WHEREAS, a motion is pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 10 Litigation to transfer the CIQ cases to this jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pretrial 11 proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, responses to the motion supporting coordination or 12 consolidation have been filed, and plaintiffs and defendants anticipate that additional responses 13 will be filed; 14 15 WHEREAS plaintiffs anticipate the possibility of one or more consolidated amended complaints in the CIQ cases; 16 WHEREAS plaintiffs and defendant HTC America, Inc. have agreed that an 17 orderly schedule for any response to the pleadings in the CIQ cases would be more efficient for 18 the parties and for the Court; 19 WHEREAS plaintiffs agree that the deadline for defendant HTC America, Inc. to 20 answer, move, or otherwise respond to their complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the 21 following dates: (1) forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in the 22 CIQ cases; or (2) forty-five days after plaintiffs provide written notice to defendants that plaintiffs 23 do not intend to file a consolidated amended complaint; or (3) as otherwise ordered by this Court 24 or the MDL transferee court; provided, however, that in the event that HTC America, Inc. should 25 agree to an earlier response date in any of these cases, HTC America, Inc. will respond to the 26 complaint in the above-captioned action on that earlier date; 27 28 WHEREAS plaintiffs further agree that this extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs, to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of 16019767.1 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD 1 their intention to join this Stipulation; 2 WHEREAS this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by HTC America, Inc. of 3 any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject 4 matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process or service of process; 5 WHEREAS, with respect to any defendant joining the Stipulation, this Stipulation 6 does not constitute a waiver of any defense, including but not limited to the defenses of lack of 7 personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, sufficiency of process, or 8 service of process; and 9 WHEREAS, plaintiffs and defendant HTC America, Inc., as well as any defendant 10 joining this Stipulation, agree that preservation of evidence in the CIQ cases is vital, that 11 defendants have received litigation hold letters, that they are complying with and will continue to 12 comply with all of their evidence preservation obligations under governing law, and that that the 13 delay brought about by this Stipulation should not result in the loss of any evidence, 14 Now, therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, plaintiffs in the above- 15 referenced case and defendant HTC America, Inc., by and through their respective counsel of 16 record, hereby stipulate as follows: 17 1. The deadline for HTC America, Inc. to answer, move, or otherwise respond to 18 plaintiffs’ complaint shall be extended until the earliest of the following dates: 19 forty-five days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in these cases; 20 or forty-five days after plaintiffs provide written notice to defendant HTC 21 America, Inc. that plaintiffs do not intend to file a Consolidated Amended 22 Complaint; or as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL transferee court; 23 provided, however, that in the event that HTC America, Inc. should agree to an 24 earlier response date in any of these cases, except by court order, HTC America, 25 Inc. will respond to the complaint in the above-captioned case on that earlier date. 26 2. This extension is available, without further stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs, 27 to all named defendants who notify plaintiffs in writing of their intention to join 28 this Stipulation; 16019767.1 -2- STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD 1 3. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by HTC America, Inc. or any other 2 named defendant joining the Stipulation of any defense, including but not limited 3 to the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, 4 improper venue, sufficiency of process, or service of process. 5 4. As a condition of entry into this Stipulation, defendant HTC America, Inc. and any 6 other defendant(s) joining this Stipulation, and the plaintiffs, agree that they are 7 complying with and will continue to comply with all evidentiary preservation 8 obligations under governing law. 9 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 10 11 DATED: December 20, 2011 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 12 13 By: /s/ Rosemarie T. Ring Rosemarie T. Ring Attorneys for Defendant HTC America, Inc. 14 15 16 17 DATED: December 20, 2011 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 18 19 By: /s/ Robert F. Lopez Robert F. Lopez Attorneys for Plaintiffs Patrick Kenny, Justin Sharp, Jeremy Feitelson, and Greg Feitelson and the Proposed Class 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16019767.1 -3- STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD 1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 5 Dated: December 21, 2011 Edward J. Davila United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16019767.1 -4- STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05821-EJD 1 CERTIFICATION 2 I, Rosemarie T. Ring, am the ECF User whose identification and password are 3 being used to file this STIPULATION RE: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO 4 RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO 5 RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B., I hereby attest that 6 Robert F. Lopezp concurred in this filing. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16019767.1 -5- STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 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.
