Filed: Apr. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS' DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO FLUENT'S ANSWER MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . BACKGROUND/BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 16, 2016, Plaintiffs Mira Blanchard et al filed — but did not serve — a lawsuit against Fluent Inc., Reward Zone USA LLC, RewardsFlow LLC, American Prize Center LLC, and Mohit Singla (collectively "Fluent") and other Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco for violations
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS' DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO FLUENT'S ANSWER MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . BACKGROUND/BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 16, 2016, Plaintiffs Mira Blanchard et al filed — but did not serve — a lawsuit against Fluent Inc., Reward Zone USA LLC, RewardsFlow LLC, American Prize Center LLC, and Mohit Singla (collectively "Fluent") and other Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco for violations o..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS' DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO FLUENT'S ANSWER
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
BACKGROUND/BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 16, 2016, Plaintiffs Mira Blanchard et al filed — but did not serve — a lawsuit against Fluent Inc., Reward Zone USA LLC, RewardsFlow LLC, American Prize Center LLC, and Mohit Singla (collectively "Fluent") and other Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco for violations of Cal. Business & Professions Code § 17529.5. On December 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amendment Complaint and served Fluent thereafter.
On March 22, 2017, Fluent timely removed the Action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Docket #1). On March 29, 2017, Fluent filed an Answer (Docket #15).
Also on March 29, 2017, Defendant Sauphtware Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC (Docket #14).
On April 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the Action on substantive and procedural grounds (Docket #16). On April 4, 2017, this Court issued its own Order Directing Fluent to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Remanded [and] Continuing Hearing on Sauphtware Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Docket #18).
On April 3, 2017, in light of the Court's signaling that it did not want to consider Sauphtware's Motion to Dismiss until first resolving the question of federal jurisdiction, and in the interest of reducing the burden on all parties and the Court, Plaintiffs asked Fluent to agree to continue their deadline to file a Rule 12(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement and/or Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike as to Fluent's Answer until 21 days after this Court rules on federal jurisdiction. On April 10, 2017, Fluent agreed to Plaintiffs' request.
STIPULATION
Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Rule 12(e) and/or Rule 12(f) Motion as to Fluent's Answer is continued to 21 days after this Court rules on federal jurisdiction (if this Court finds federal jurisdiction).
THE FOREGOING STIPULATION IS APPROVED AND IS SO ORDERED.
