Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01117/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01117-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Defendants seek leave to file a motion to reconsider the

Court’s May 10, 2010 Order, which denied them leave to file a

motion to reconsider the Court’s order denying a stay pending

appeal. The Court therefore understands Defendant’s current motion

to seek reconsideration of the order denying a stay pending appeal. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN MCARDLE, an individual, on

behalf of himself, the general public

and those similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AT&T MOBILITY LLC; NEW CINGULAR

WIRELESS PCS LLC; and NEW CINGULAR

WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-1117 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 129)

Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., move for leave to file a

motion to reconsider the Court’s order denying their motion for a

stay pending appeal.1 A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for class

certification is scheduled for June 10, 2010. 

Under Civil L.R. 7-9, a party may ask a court to reconsider an

interlocutory order if the party can show: 

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was

presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory

order for which reconsideration is sought. The party

also must show that in the exercise of reasonable

Case 4:09-cv-01117-CW Document 144 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not

know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory

order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of

law occurring after the time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented

to the Court before such interlocutory order.

On May 24, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in AT&T

Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. ___ S. Ct. ___, 2010 WL 303962 (Mem.). 

The question presented by the certiorari petition is 

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts States from

conditioning the enforcement of an arbitration agreement

on the availability of particular procedures -- here,

class-wide arbitration -- when those procedures are not

necessary to ensure that the parties to the arbitration

agreement are able to vindicate their claims.

Pet. for a Writ of Certiorari, AT&T Mobility LLC, 2010 WL 304265. 

In the underlying case, Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC, the Ninth

Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of AT&T’s motion to

compel arbitration. 584 F.3d 849, 859 (9th Cir. 2009). The court

based its decision in large part on Shroyer v. New Cingular

Wireless Services, Inc., which held that California law on

unconscionability could render an arbitration clause unenforceable, 

498 F.3d 976, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2007). 

The Court finds that Defendants make the requisite showing

under Civil L.R. 7-9 and, accordingly, GRANTS their motion for

leave to file a motion to reconsider. (Docket No. 129.) 

Defendants’ briefing for its current motion and its motion filed on

May 4, 2010 will be considered for its motion to reconsider. 

Plaintiff shall file an opposition brief within three days of the

date of this Order. A reply, if any, shall be due three days

thereafter. The motion will be taken under submission on the

Case 4:09-cv-01117-CW Document 144 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

papers. 

Defendants shall produce their subscribers’ contact

information in accordance with Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James’s

Order of April 16, 2010. (Docket No. 94.) Plaintiff, however,

shall not contact any of Defendants’ subscribers based on

information obtained through this discovery. This Order renders

moot Defendants’ emergency motion to stay their obligation under

Magistrate Judge James’s Order. (Docket No. 132.) 

The Court VACATES the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class

Certification, scheduled for June 10, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-01117-CW Document 144 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 3