From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schroeder v. AT&T Mobility LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 28, 2011
Case No. 3:11-cv-04412-CRB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 3:11-cv-04412-CRB

11-28-2011

DEBORAH L. SCHROEDER and ASTRID MENDOZA, Plaintiffs, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant.

BURSOR & FISHER P.A. By: Scott A. Bursor (SBN 276006) L. Timothy Fisher Sarah N. Westcot BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Attorneys for Defendants Leslie Bernardi and Laura Barrett in No. 3:11-cv-03992-CRB and for Plaintiffs Deborah Schroeder and Astrid Mendoza in No. 3:11-cv-04412-CRB MAYER BROWN LLP By: /s/ Kevin Ranlett Kevin Ranlett (pro hac vice) Donald M. Falk (SBN 150256) John M. Neukom (SBN 275887) Andrew J. Pincus (pro hac vice) Evan M. Tager (pro hac vice) Archis A. Parasharami (pro hac vice) Kevin Ranlett (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP Attorneys for PlaintiffAT&T MobilityLLC in No. 3:11-cv-03992-CRB and Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC in No. 3:11-cv-04412-CRB


DONALD M. FALK (SBN 150256)

JOHN M. NEUKOM (SBN 275887)

MAYER BROWN LLP

Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, Plaintiffs Deborah L. Schroeder and Astrid Mendoza commenced this action against Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("ATTM") by filing a petition to compel arbitration (Dkt. No. 1);

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2011, the Court related this action to AT&T Mobility LLC v. Bernardi, No. 3:11-cv-03392-CRB (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. No. 6);

WHEREAS, in the Bernardi action, this Court had entered an order scheduling a case management conference on December 2, 2011 and directing the parties to submit a joint case management statement at least seven days beforehand (Bernardi, Dkt. No. 8);

WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, the Court entered an order in Schroeder scheduling a case management conference for the same time on December 2, 2011 as the conference in Bernardi (Schroeder, Dkt. No. 10);

WHEREAS, on October 26, 2011, the Court granted ATTM's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the Bernardi defendants' motion to compel arbitration and the Schroeder plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and petition to compel arbitration (Bernardi, Dkt. No. 86; Schroeder, Dkt. No. 29);

WHEREAS, on November 9, 2011, the Bernardi defendants filed their Answer, which asserted two counterclaims against ATTM (Bernardi, Dkt. No. 87);

WHEREAS, ATTM's response to the counterclaims in Bernardi is due on December 5, 2011, and ATTM intends to notice any motion responding to those counterclaims for a hearing on January 13, 2012;

WHEREAS, the parties stipulate that it would be more efficient to combine the case management conferences in Bernardi and Schroeder with the hearing on any motion responding to the counterclaims in Bernardi;

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between ATTM and the defendants in Bernardi and the plaintiffs in Schroeder that, with the Court's permission, the case management conferences in Bernardi and Schroeder shall be continued until January 13, 2012 and combined with the hearing on any motion responding to the counterclaims in Bernardi.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

BURSOR & FISHER P.A.

By: Scott A. Bursor (SBN 276006)

L. Timothy Fisher

Sarah N. Westcot

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

Attorneys for Defendants Leslie Bernardi and

Laura Barrett in No. 3:11-cv-03992-CRB and

for Plaintiffs Deborah Schroeder and Astrid

Mendoza in No. 3:11-cv-04412-CRB

MAYER BROWN LLP

By: /s/ Kevin Ranlett

Kevin Ranlett (pro hac vice)

Donald M. Falk (SBN 150256)

John M. Neukom (SBN 275887)

Andrew J. Pincus (pro hac vice)

Evan M. Tager (pro hac vice)

Archis A. Parasharami (pro hac vice)

Kevin Ranlett (pro hac vice)

MAYER BROWN LLP

Attorneys for PlaintiffAT&T MobilityLLC in

No. 3:11-cv-03992-CRB and Defendant AT&T

Mobility LLC in No. 3:11-cv-04412-CRB

Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B), Kevin Ranlett hereby attests that the signatories' concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. [PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Charles R. Breyer


Summaries of

Schroeder v. AT&T Mobility LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 28, 2011
Case No. 3:11-cv-04412-CRB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)
Case details for

Schroeder v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Case Details

Full title:DEBORAH L. SCHROEDER and ASTRID MENDOZA, Plaintiffs, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Nov 28, 2011

Citations

Case No. 3:11-cv-04412-CRB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)