Opinion
CV 2:24-cv-00050-BMM
08-06-2024
EMMANUEL CHAIDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SNOWFLAKE, INC., Defendant.
Brianne C. McClafferty Holland & Hart LLP Kevin Johnson (pro hac vice forthcoming) Stephen A. Broome (pro hac vice forthcoming) Viola Trebicka (pro hac vice forthcoming) Lauren Lindsay (pro hac vice forthcoming) Delaney Gold-Diamond (pro hac vice forthcoming) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SNOWFLAKE, INC. John Heenan Heenan & Cook Jeff Ostrow (pro hac vice forthcoming) Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PROPOSED CLASS
Brianne C. McClafferty
Holland & Hart LLP
Kevin Johnson (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Stephen A. Broome (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Viola Trebicka (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Lauren Lindsay (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Delaney Gold-Diamond (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SNOWFLAKE, INC.
John Heenan
Heenan & Cook
Jeff Ostrow (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PROPOSED CLASS
ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINTS
BRIAN MORRIS, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
WHEREAS, there are currently nine proposed consumer class actions (together, the “Related Actions”) pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana against Defendant Snowflake, Inc. (“Snowflake”):
• Leal v. Snowflake, Inc., No. CV-24-46-BU-BMM, filed June 13, 2024;
• Chaidez v. Snowflake, Inc., No. CV-24-50-BU-BMM, filed June 27, 2024;
• Doe, Smith and Stewart v. Snowflake, Inc., CV-24-51-BU-BMM-JTJ, filed June 27, 2024;
• Bowers v. Snowflake, Inc., No. CV-24-55-BU-JTJ, filed July 10, 2024;
• Olivieri, v. AT&T, Inc.., AT&T Mobility LLC and Snowflake, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00056-JTJ, filed July 17, 2024;
• Wilkinson v. Snowflake, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00057-TJC, filed July 17, 2024;
• Armstrong v. Snowflake, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00058-JTJ, filed July 17, 2024;
• Giangiulio v. Snowflake, Inc., No. CV-24-60-BU-JTJ, filed July 18, 2024;
• Layman v. Snowflake, Inc., No. 2-24-cv-62-TJC, filed July 22, 2024.
WHEREAS, due to the separate filing and service dates of each of the Plaintiffs' complaints, Snowflake's deadlines to respond to each of the Related Actions' complaints vary;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' counsel for the Related Actions recognize that it would be inefficient for Snowflake to respond to each complaint, particularly given the likelihood that plaintiffs may agree to consolidate the actions or, if they do not, that Snowflake will move for consolidation;
WHEREAS, to conserve party and judicial resources and for efficiency, Snowflake asked Plaintiffs to extend its time to respond to each of the Related Actions' complaints and Plaintiffs agreed;
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties through their respective counsel hereby STIPULATE AND AGREE THAT:
1. The deadlines for Snowflake to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaints in each of the Related Actions, including the Complaint in Chaidez v. Snowflake, Inc. is extended until September 24, 2024.
2. The parties will meet and confer regarding consolidation of the complaints against Snowflake and promptly update the Court with their positions.
PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.