Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Federal Trade Commission v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 14-cv-04785-EMC. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150302724 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2015
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST FOR FURTHER LIMITED BRIEFING REGARDING DEFENDANT AT&T'S MOTION TO DISMISS EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-3(d) and 7-12, plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T") (collectively, the "Parties") hereby respectfully request Court approval to submit limited additional briefing relevant to AT&T's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #29). This request is occasioned by recent action by the Federal Communications Com
More

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR FURTHER LIMITED BRIEFING REGARDING DEFENDANT AT&T'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-3(d) and 7-12, plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T") (collectively, the "Parties") hereby respectfully request Court approval to submit limited additional briefing relevant to AT&T's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #29). This request is occasioned by recent action by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). Earlier today, the FCC issued an order reclassifying broadband internet access services — including the mobile data service at issue in this case — as common carriage subject to Title II of the Communications Act. See FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules to Protect the Open Internet, FCC press release, Feb. 26, 2015, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-332260A1.pdf. Because AT&T's motion relies on the common carrier exemption to Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, the parties believe that the Court would benefit from further limited briefing on what effect, if any, the FCC's action should have on this matter.

Accordingly, the parties request the following additional briefing:

1. A sur-reply, not to exceed ten pages, to be filed by the FTC on Tuesday, March 2, 2015. 2. A sur-sur-reply, not to exceed ten pages, to be filed by AT&T on Friday, March 5, 2015.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), I hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from all other signatories to this document.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer