STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING RESPONSE DATE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE/AND MOTION TO REMAND AND CONTINUING HEARING TO JUNE 2, 2017

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 LLC, served and f/k/a Fluent Inc., Reward Zone USA LLC, RewardsFlow LLC, American Prize Center LLC, and Monit 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).

With respect to the Court's Order to Show Cause, Fluent is diligently investigating the citizenship of the defendants who are not within the collective definition of Fluent, or defendants Sauphtware to fully respond to the Court's Order. Unfortunately, the investigation is taking longer than anticipated, and additional time is needed.

On April 14, 2017, Fluent's counsel and plaintiffs' counsel agreed that an additional three weeks was appropriate and reasonable given the number of defendants involved, as well as plaintiffs' own efforts in alleging citizenship. Since the Order to Show Cause essentially subsumes some of the points in the pending Motion to Remand, it was agreed that it would be appropriate to request that the response to the Order to Show Cause, Opposition to the Motion to Remand, and Hearing on the Motion to Remand, all be continued for three weeks.

STIPULATION

Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to a three week continuance of the deadlines and motion hearing date. Fluent's Opposition to the Motion to Remand and Response to the Order to Show Cause, presently due on April 17, 2017 will now be due to be filed no later than May 8, 2017. The hearing on plaintiffs' motion to remand will be continued from May 12, 2017 to June 2, 2017, or the next available date for the Court.

ATTESTATION

In accordance with Civ.L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory.

PROPOSED ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. It is further ordered that plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed no later than May 15, 2017.