From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Valentine v. Nebuad, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 9, 2011
No. C08-cv-05113 (TEH) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011)

Summary

calling Bunnell "unconvincing"

Summary of this case from List Interactive, Ltd. v. Knights of Columbus

Opinion

No. C08-cv-05113 (TEH)

08-09-2011

DAN VALENTINE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEBUAD, INC., et al., Defendants.

SCOTT KAMBER ( pro hac vice ) DAVID A. STAMPLEY KAMBERLAW, LLC JOSEPH H. MALLEY ( pro hac vice ) LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, P.C. DAVID C. PARISI (SBN 162248) SUZANNE HAVENS BECKMAN (SBN 188814) PARISI & HAVENS LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs. ROBERT A. WEIKERT (State Bar No. 121146) TALLEY E. MCINTYRE (State Bar No. 203131) NIXON PEABODY LLP JASON C. KRAVITZ ( pro hac vice ) NIXON PEABODY LLP Attorneys for Defendant, NEBUAD, INC.


SCOTT KAMBER (pro hac vice)

DAVID A. STAMPLEY

KAMBERLAW, LLC

JOSEPH H. MALLEY (pro hac vice)

LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, P.C.

DAVID C. PARISI (SBN 162248)

SUZANNE HAVENS BECKMAN (SBN 188814)

PARISI & HAVENS LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

ROBERT A. WEIKERT (State Bar No. 121146)

TALLEY E. MCINTYRE (State Bar No. 203131)

NIXON PEABODY LLP

JASON C. KRAVITZ (pro hac vice)

NIXON PEABODY LLP

Attorneys for Defendant, NEBUAD, INC.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE FOR FILING OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MOTION

Hon. Thelton E. Henderson.

Complaint Filed: November 10, 2008

Trial Date: None Set

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiffs and Defendant NebuAd, Inc. ("NebuAd") hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. On June 20, 2011, the Court held a Case Management Conference and directed Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Preliminary Approval on or before August 8, 2011 and set the motion hearing for Monday, September 12, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. (DKT. 230.)

2. Plaintiffs' counsel are in the process of obtaining client approval of their motion for preliminary approval of settlement and, owing to vacation schedules, respectfully request a one-week delay in the deadline for the filing of such papers.

3. Plaintiffs believe such motion will not be contested or the subject of response and therefore respectfully request that the September 12, 2011 date for the hearing of such motion remain undisturbed.

4. In light of the foregoing, the Parties respectfully request the Court's endorsement of the stipulation herein to continue the date for Plaintiffs' filing of their motion for preliminary approval of settlement.

Respectfully submitted, KamberLaw, LLC

DAVID A. STAMPLEY

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Nixon Peabody LLP

JASON C. KRAVITZ

Attorneys for Defendant NebuAd, Inc.

BRIAN J. PANISH (SBN 116060, N.D. Cal. adm. pending)

RAHUL RAVIPUDI (SBN 204519, N.D. Cal. adm. pending)

PANISH, SHEA & BOYLE, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff Dan Valentine

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Valentine v. Nebuad, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 9, 2011
No. C08-cv-05113 (TEH) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011)

calling Bunnell "unconvincing"

Summary of this case from List Interactive, Ltd. v. Knights of Columbus

In Valentine, the court concluded that non-resident plaintiffs had standing to bring claims under CIPA against a resident defendant where the intercepted communications were routed to the defendant's California headquarters for analysis.

Summary of this case from In re Yahoo Mail Litigation

In Valentine v. NebuAd, Inc., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2011), Judge Henderson also rejected implied field preemption, relying in large part on two cases issued by the California Supreme Court, namely, People v. Conklin, 12 Cal. 3d 259 (1974), and Kearney v. Solomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006).

Summary of this case from Shively v. Carrier IQ, Inc.
Case details for

Valentine v. Nebuad, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DAN VALENTINE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEBUAD, INC., et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 9, 2011

Citations

No. C08-cv-05113 (TEH) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011)

Citing Cases

List Interactive, Ltd. v. Knights of Columbus

Moreover, the cases are contrary to the great weight of authority across jurisdictions in answering this…

Young v. Cree, Inc.

Preemption is express where Congress has considered the issue of preemption and included in the enacted…