Court filing
Order by Judge Edward M Chen granting 143 AMENDED STIPULATION… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 144)
Summary
Document 144, filed 11/29/22 in Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW (Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, N.D. Cal.), is an Amended Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Defendant's Deadline to Respond Thereto, with an order line dated November 29, 2022 for Hon. Edward M. Chen. It recites that Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on November 14, 2022 that included certain previously dismissed claims to preserve appellate rights, and that ECF 141 wrongly suggested the Unfair Competition Law monetary-relief dismissal would be with prejudice. The terms vacate ECF 142, clarify that ECF 54 was with prejudice except that the UCL monetary-relief dismissal is without prejudice but without leave to amend, require refiling within five (5) court days, and set Defendant's response deadline at December 28, 2022.
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
“Order by Judge Edward M Chen granting 143 AMENDED STIPULATION… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 144).”
Original at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, Doc. 144. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-brooks-thomsonreuters-cand-374304/2022-11-29-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-144-0-doc-144/
, SHA-256 720dd2ba68d22b0b63d456368068c155573660299369a4515e7166a1e63e6aad.Full text
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 144 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 6
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 144 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 6
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 144 Filed 11/29/22 Page 3 of 6
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 144 Filed 11/29/22 Page 4 of 6
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 144 Filed 11/29/22 Page 5 of 6
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 144 Filed 11/29/22 Page 6 of 6
1 [PROPOSED] ORDER
2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4 DATED: November 29, 2022
___________________ __________________________
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
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.374304.144.0.pdf
- Size
- 152,307 bytes
- SHA-256
- 720dd2ba68d22b0b63d456368068c155573660299369a4515e7166a1e63e6aad
- Original
- PACER (login required)