From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McMahon v. Meta Platforms Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Feb 10, 2023
2:23-cv-00171 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-00171

02-10-2023

MICHAEL MCMAHON, Plaintiff, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., dba META, formerly known as FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant.

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Aravind Swaminathan (WSBA No. 33883) Michelle Visser (pro hac vice forthcoming) Attorneys for Defendant


ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Aravind Swaminathan (WSBA No. 33883) Michelle Visser (pro hac vice forthcoming) Attorneys for Defendant

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS

Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge

Plaintiff Michael McMahon and Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc., by and through their counsel, stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 6, 2023 in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. Defendant's counsel accepted service email on the same day.

2. Defendant removed the case to this Court on February 3, 2023, based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not consent to removal and reserves the right to move to remand the case to the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.

3. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2), Meta's deadline to respond to the Complaint in this Court is February 10, 2023, absent an extension of time. Meta has indicated its intention to move to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims and has requested additional time to investigate Plaintiff's claims and prepare its Motion to Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff is amenable to Meta's request for an extension and further wishes to agree on an orderly schedule for disposition of Meta's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

4. Additionally, Meta asserts that the Complaint is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) on the basis that, inter alia, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief, and Plaintiff disputes that assertion. Meta will, if necessary, file a Motion to Dismiss regarding such dispute.

5. The parties believe that, in the event this case remains in this Court, it would be most efficient for the parties and the Court to first resolve Meta's Motion to Compel Arbitration before addressing Meta's arguments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b).

6. The parties have met and conferred concerning the timing and briefing schedule on Meta's motion to compel arbitration and have agreed to the following schedule, subject to the Court's approval:

Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration:

Motion Due: March 3, 2023
Opposition Due: March 31, 2023
Reply Due: April 21, 2023
If the Court enters an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss:
Motion Due: Twenty-eight (28) days after the Court's order
Opposition Due: Twenty-eight (28) days after the Motion due date
Reply Due: Twenty-one (21) days after the Opposition due date

7. In stipulating to this briefing schedule, Plaintiff does not waive any defenses or objections against Meta's Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion to Dismiss, or any other dispositive motions. Plaintiff further preserves the right to assert any and all motions, defenses, and objections available against Meta.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED

The parties shall adhere to the filing and briefing schedule set forth in their Stipulation.


Summaries of

McMahon v. Meta Platforms Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Feb 10, 2023
2:23-cv-00171 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2023)
Case details for

McMahon v. Meta Platforms Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL MCMAHON, Plaintiff, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., dba META, formerly…

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Feb 10, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-00171 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2023)