Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation — U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal. STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 142 Order on Stipulation AMENDED… — Brooks v. Thomso…

Court filing

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 142 Order on Stipulation AMENDED… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 143)

Summary

Document 143, filed 11/28/22 in Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW, is an amended stipulation and proposed order between Plaintiffs and Thomson Reuters regarding Plaintiffs' amended complaint and Defendant's deadline to respond. The parties say Plaintiffs included previously dismissed claims in an abundance of caution to preserve appellate rights, and agree they need not be repled. The proposed order would clarify that the prior order on the motion to dismiss was with prejudice, except that dismissal of the Unfair Competition Law claim for monetary relief is without prejudice for lack of equitable jurisdiction but without leave to amend. It would also require Plaintiffs to refile the first amended complaint without the dismissed claims within five court days and set Defendant's responsive pleading deadline at December 28, 2022. The order's date and signature lines are blank.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 142 Order on Stipulation AMENDED… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 143).” Original at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, Doc. 143. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-brooks-thomsonreuters-cand-374304/2022-11-28-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-143-0-doc-143/, SHA-256 11682aa24356e7bc29f9c7370208a3a8702a4c4d3b90c10c52aa1e9dc71a1cfe.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

             Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 143 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 7



     Eric H. Gibbs (SBN 178658)                        Geoffrey A. Graber (SBN 211547)
 1
     Andre M. Mura (SBN 298541)                        Karina G. Puttieva (SBN 317702)
 2   Amy M. Zeman (SBN 273100)                         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
     Mark H. Troutman (pro hac vice)                   PLLC
 3   Ezekiel S. Wald (SBN 341490)                      1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
     Hanne Jensen (SBN 336045)                         Washington, DC 20005
 4
     GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP                               Telephone: (202) 408-4600
 5   1111 Broadway, Suite 2100                         Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
     Oakland, CA 94607                                 ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
 6   Telephone: (510) 350-9700                         kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com
 7   Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
     ehg@classlawgroup.com
 8   amm@classlawgroup.com
     amz@classlawgroup.com
 9
     mht@classlawgroup.com
10   zsw@classlawgroup.com
     hj@classlawgroup.com
11
     Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
12

13

14

15
                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
16                             NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17                                 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18   CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ,                   Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
     individually and on behalf of all others
19
     similarly situated,                               AMENDED STIPULATION AND
20                                                     [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
                                   Plaintiffs,         PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
21          v.                                         COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S
                                                       DEADLINE TO RESPOND THERETO
22
     THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
23                                                     Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
                                 Defendant.
24

25

26

27

28                                        1
     AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
            COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND THERETO
                           Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
             Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 143 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 7




 1          Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), and Civil Local Rules 6-1(a) and 7-

 2   12, the parties hereby stipulate as follows:

 3          Whereas, on November 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed, with leave of Court, a first amended

 4   complaint that included certain claims previously dismissed, see ECF 54, 133, 135;

 5          Whereas, Plaintiffs included such claims in an abundance of caution to preserve

 6   appellate rights, see ECF 123 at 2 n.1, because, while they had understood such claims to have

 7   been dismissed either with prejudice or without leave to amend, the Court’s order did not

 8   expressly so state;

 9          Whereas, the parties have met and conferred and agree that Plaintiffs may refile their

10 amended complaint without re-alleging previously dismissed claims, thus obviating any need

11 of Defendant to file another motion to dismiss such claims, subject to the Court’s clarification

12 that its previous order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF

13 54, was with prejudice. However, to the extent the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Unfair

14 Competition Law cause of action for monetary relief because Plaintiffs have an adequate legal

15 remedy, this dismissal is without prejudice for lack of equitable jurisdiction and without leave

16 to amend. See Guzman v. Polaris Industries Inc., 49 F.4th 1308, 1315 (9th Cir. 2022); Brooks v.

17 Thomson Reuters Corp., No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW, ECF 54 at 18-19 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021).

18 The claims dismissed in the Court’s prior order need not be repled and are preserved for appeal.
19 See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012);

20          Whereas, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(a) and 7-12, the parties also agree that

21 Defendant may file a responsive pleading by December 28, 2022;

22          Whereas, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order, ECF 141, which erroneously

23 suggested the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ UCL cause of action for monetary relief would be with

24 prejudice when, as stated above, it would be without prejudice or leave to amend. The Court

25 granted the stipulation before the parties were able to submit an amended proposal. ECF 142;

26          ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the Court’s

27 approval, that:

28                                       2
     AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
           COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND THERETO
                          Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
           Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 143 Filed 11/28/22 Page 3 of 7




 1     1. The Court vacates its prior Order granting the parties’ stipulation regarding Plaintiffs’

 2        amended complaint and Defendant’s deadline to respond thereto. ECF 142.

 3     2. The Court clarifies that in its previous order granting in part and denying in part

 4        Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF 54, was with prejudice. However, to the extent the

 5        Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law cause of action for monetary relief

 6        because Plaintiffs have an adequate legal remedy, this dismissal is without prejudice for

 7        lack of equitable jurisdiction, but without leave to amend. Guzman v. Polaris Industries

 8        Inc., 49 F.4th 1308, 1315 (9th Cir. 2022); Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corp., No. 3:21-cv-01418-

 9        EMC-KAW, ECF 54 at 18-19 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021). The claims dismissed in the

10        Court’s prior order need not be repled and are preserved for appeal. See Lacey v. Maricopa

11        County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).

12     3. Plaintiffs shall refile their first amended complaint without the dismissed claims within

13        five (5) court days of entry of this order.

14     4. Defendant shall file a responsive pleading no later than December 28, 2022.

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28                                       3
     AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
           COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND THERETO
                          Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
           Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 143 Filed 11/28/22 Page 4 of 7




 1
     DATED: November 28, 2022             GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
 2

 3                                        Respectfully submitted,

 4
                                          /s/ Andre M. Mura
 5

 6
                                          Eric H. Gibbs (SBN 178658)
 7                                        Andre M. Mura (SBN 298541)
                                          Amy M. Zeman (SBN 273100)
 8                                        Mark H. Troutman (pro hac vice)
 9                                        Ezekiel S. Wald (SBN 341490)
                                          Hanne Jensen (SBN 336045)
10                                        GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
                                          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
11                                        Oakland, California 94607
12                                        (510) 350-9700
                                          ehg@classlawgroup.com
13                                        amm@classlawgroup.com
                                          amz@classlawgroup.com
14
                                          mht@classlawgroup.com
15                                        zsw@classlawgroup.com
                                          hj@classlawgroup.com
16

17                                        Geoffrey A. Graber (SBN 211547)
                                          Karina G. Puttieva (SBN 317702)
18                                        COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
                                          1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
19
                                          Washington, DC 20005
20                                        Telephone: (202) 408-4600
                                          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
21                                        ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
22                                        kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com

23
                                          Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
24

25

26

27

28                                       4
     AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
           COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND THERETO
                          Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
           Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 143 Filed 11/28/22 Page 5 of 7




 1   DATED: November 28, 2022             PERKINS COIE LLP

 2
                                          By: /s/ Susan D. Fahringer
 3

 4                                            Susan D. Fahringer (SBN 21567)
                                              Nicola C. Menaldo (pro hac vice)
 5                                            Anna M. Thompson (pro hac vice)
                                              1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
 6
                                              Seattle, WA 98101-3099
 7                                            Telephone: (206) 359-8000
                                              Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
 8                                            SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
 9                                            NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
                                              AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
10
                                              Hayden M. Schottlaender (pro hac vice)
11
                                              PERKINS COIE LLP
12                                            500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
                                              Dallas, Texas 75201-3347
13                                            Telephone: (214) 965-7700
                                              Facsimile: (214) 965-7799
14
                                              HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
15
                                              Gabriella Gallego (SBN 324226)
16                                            PERKINS COIE LLP
17                                            3150 Porter Drive
                                              Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
18                                            Telephone: (650) 838-4300
                                              Facsimile: (650) 838-4350
19
                                              GGallego@perkinscoie.com
20
                                              Attorneys for Defendant
21                                            Thomson Reuters Corporation
22

23

24

25

26

27

28                                       5
     AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
           COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND THERETO
                          Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
          Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 143 Filed 11/28/22 Page 6 of 7




 1                                [PROPOSED] ORDER

 2       PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

 3

 4   DATED: ___________________            __________________________
                                           The Hon. Edward M. Chen
 5                                         United States District Judge
 6

 7

 8

 9
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28                                       6
     AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
           COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND THERETO
                          Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
            Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 143 Filed 11/28/22 Page 7 of 7




 1                                           ATTESTATION

 2         Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this

 3   document has been obtained from the other signatory.

 4

 5                                                          /s/ Andre M. Mura

 6

 7

 8

 9
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28                                       7
     AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED
           COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND THERETO
                          Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.cand.374304.143.0.pdf
Size
172,927 bytes
SHA-256
11682aa24356e7bc29f9c7370208a3a8702a4c4d3b90c10c52aa1e9dc71a1cfe
Our copy
gov.uscourts.cand.374304.143.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top