Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

JUDELSOHN v. FITBIT, INC., 4:14-CV-01287-CW (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140801e06 Visitors: 32
Filed: Jul. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON FITBIT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge. Plaintiffs Robyn Judelsohn, George Reed, Randi Akana, Milissa Morgan, Kyle McCloud, Laurie McGuire, and Michael Baskharon (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and Defendant Fitbit, Inc. ("Fitbit"), by and through their respective counsel, respectfully request that the Court continue the briefing schedule and heari
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON FITBIT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Robyn Judelsohn, George Reed, Randi Akana, Milissa Morgan, Kyle McCloud, Laurie McGuire, and Michael Baskharon (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and Defendant Fitbit, Inc. ("Fitbit"), by and through their respective counsel, respectfully request that the Court continue the briefing schedule and hearing date on Fitbit's motions to dismiss as well as to continue the upcoming case management conference. A brief summary of the relevant background in support of this request is set forth as follows:

1. On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff Judelsohn filed a proposed class action complaint against Fitbit, Case No. 4:14-CV-01287-CW ("Judelsohn Action"), in the Northern District of California. The Judelsohn Action generally alleges that Fitbit violated California consumer protection laws, including the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.) and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.), through its alleged misrepresentations regarding the marketing and same Fitbit's Force™ Wireless Activity + Sleep Wristband ("Force Wristband").

2. On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs George Reed, Randi Akana, Milissa Morgan, Kyle McCloud, Laurie McGuire, and Michael Baskharon filed a class action complaint in Reed, et al. v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 4:14-CV-01350-CW ("Reed Action"), in the Northern District of California. The Reed Action asserts substantially similar claims to those alleged against Fitbit in the Judelsohn Action on behalf of substantially similar, if not identical, proposed classes. On April 1, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff Judelsohn's motion to relate the Judelsohn and Reed Actions pursuant to Local Civil Rule 3-12(a).

3. Fitbit has accepted service of the summonses and Reed and Judelsohn complaints and filed motions to dismiss both cases on July 1, 2014.

4. On July 18, 2014, the Court issued an order consolidating briefing on both motions to dismiss in the Judelsohn and Reed Actions and set a consolidated hearing and case management conference for both matters on August 28, 2014. Plaintiffs' joint opposition to Fitbit's Motions to Dismiss is currently due July 31, 2014, and Fitbit's reply brief is currently due on August 14, 2014.

5. Since receipt of the Court's July 18, 2014 order consolidating the briefing on Fitbit's motions to dismiss, counsel for all parties have conferred and agree that in light of ongoing settlement discussions, the motion to dismiss briefing schedule for the Judelsohn and Reed Actions should be extended by 30 days in order to preserve the parties' and the Court's resources while they explore potential resolution. Accordingly, the parties propose Plaintiffs' joint opposition brief shall be due September 5, 2014, and Fitbit shall have until September 19, 2014, to file its reply memorandum;

6. Additionally, the parties propose continuing the case management conference and the hearing date on Fitbit's motion to dismiss to October 2, 2014.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant, that:

1. Plaintiffs in the related cases of Judelsohn, et al. v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 4:14-CV-01287-CW and Reed, et al. v. Fitbit, Inc., Case No. 4:14-CV-01350-CW shall file their joint opposition brief on or before September 5, 2014, and Fitbit shall have until September 19, 2014 to file its reply memorandum.

2. The August 28, 2014 hearing date on the motions and case management conference is continued to October 2, 2014. Any other deadlines pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rules running from such date are reset and will recommence upon the Court's order granting this stipulation.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The above Stipulation of the parties having been considered by the Court and good cause appearing therefore, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. Plaintiffs shall have up and until September 5, 2014, to file an opposition brief to Fitbit's motion to dismiss. Fitbit shall have until September 19, 2014 to file its reply memorandum. 2. The August 28, 2014 hearing date on the motions and case management conference is continued to October 2, 2014. Any other deadlines pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rules running from such date are reset and will recommence upon the Court's order granting this stipulation.

PURUSANT 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