Opinion
2:23-cv-00098JLR
03-29-2023
CITY OF SEATTLE Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC. AND KIA AMERICA, INC., Defendants.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, WSBA #29576 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. Attorney for Plaintiff Alicia Cobb, WSBA #48685 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Steven G. Madison (pro hac vice) Justin Griffin (pro hac vice) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Attorney for Defendants
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, WSBA #29576
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. Attorney for Plaintiff
Alicia Cobb, WSBA #48685
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Steven G. Madison (pro hac vice)
Justin Griffin (pro hac vice)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Attorney for Defendants
STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON
HON. JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the City of Seattle (“Plaintiff”) filed the above-captioned action against Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and Kia America, Inc. (“Complaint”);
WHEREAS, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) coordinated before the Honorable James V. Selna in the United States District Court for the Central District of California class actions brought on behalf of owners and lessees of certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles without engine immobilizers (the “MDL”);
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Tag-Along Action with the JPML and on January 30, 2023, the JPML issued a Conditional Transfer Order (MDL No. 3052, Docket No. 124) that would have transferred this action to the MDL;
WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion to Vacate the Conditional Transfer Order on February 21, 2023, and briefing on that Motion to Vacate is now complete;
WHEREAS, Defendants deny Plaintiff's claim (and the claims of the MDL plaintiffs) and intend to file a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and/or other challenge on the grounds that the Complaint does not state a cause of action as a matter of Washington law;
WHEREAS, the Parties previously agreed to extend the deadline for Defendants' response to the Complaint to April 3, 2023;
WHEREAS, the default deadlines for holding a Rule 26(f) conference, and for initial disclosures and a discovery plan, are March 28 and April 11, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the JPML has not yet decided the pending Motion to Vacate;
THEREFORE, the Parties jointly (1) agree that the March 28, April 3, and April 11 dates described above should be vacated and this Action stayed pending the JPML's decision; (2) request that, if the Motion to Vacate is granted and this Action remains before this Court, Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended to 30 days from the date the Motion to Vacate is granted, and that within 30 days from the date that the Motion to Vacate is granted, the parties will jointly propose a schedule for holding a Rule 26(f) conference, initial disclosures, and a discovery plan; and (3) if the Motion to Vacate is denied, and this Action is transferred to the MDL, the Parties agree that Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint, as well as other initial deadlines, should be set by an anticipated scheduling order in the transferee court.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
IT IS SO ORDERED.