Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01257/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01257-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

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

24533676.1 

JOINT STIPULATION 

HENRY WEISSMANN (SBN 132418) 

henry.weissmann@mto.com 

TAMERLIN J. GODLEY (SBN 194507) 

tamerlin.godley@mto.com 

MARGARET G. MARASCHINO (SBN 267034) 

margaret.maraschino@mto.com 

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

355 South Grand Avenue 

Thirty-Fifth Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 

Telephone: (213) 683-9100 

Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 

Attorneys for Defendant VERIZON 

CALIFORNIA, INC. 

[Additional Counsel on Signature Page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS 

COMPANY L.P., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 

D/B/A AT&T CALIFORNIA; 

VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC; SUREWEST 

TELEPHONE; and SUREWEST 

TELEVIDEO,

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:14-cv-01257-MCE-CKD

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME FOR VERIZON 

CALIFORNIA, INC TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT 

Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr, 

Courtroom: #7 

Action Filed: May 21, 2014 

STIPLULATION 

Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company L.P. (“Sprint”) together with Defendant 

Verizon California, Inc. (“Verizon”) stipulate and agree as follows: 

WHEREAS, Verizon and Sprint have stipulated to extended Verizon’s time to respond to 

the Complaint by twenty-eight (28) days to October 8, 2014 pursuant to Local Rule 144(a). 

WHEREAS, Local Rules 143 and 144(a) provides that further extensions of time require 

the approval of the Court. 

Case 2:14-cv-01257-MCE-CKD Document 44 Filed 10/08/14 Page 1 of 4
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

24533676.1 -2-

JOINT STIPULATION 

WHEREAS, Sprint has brought effectively the same claims as set forth in the Complaint in 

this action against various Verizon entities in numerous jurisdictions throughout the country. 

WHEREAS, Sprint and Verizon are engaged in active settlement discussions to resolve the 

dispute and avoid the necessity of litigation; however, a settlement has not yet been reached. 

WHEREAS, as of today, Verizon and Sprint, as part of their ongoing settlement 

discussions and to streamline and consolidate the various litigations, have agreed to file a Motion 

to sever Sprint’s claims against Verizon in this matter and to transfer those claims to the Eastern 

District of Missouri, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 

Section 1404. 

WHEREAS, Sprint already has a lawsuit pending against MCI Metro Access Transmission 

Services, Inc. and MCI Communications Services, Inc. – two Verizon entities – in that district. As 

a result, consolidation of all of the Verizon entities in the Eastern District of Missouri will provide 

a forum where Verizon can resolve all of their issues with Sprint. 

WHEREAS, as part of the parties’ agreement and in order to effectuate a more orderly 

progression of the litigation, the parties have further agreed to extend the time for Verizon to 

answer the Complaint in this action until October 15, 2014 in order to hopefully allow the Court 

time to resolve the Motion to sever and transfer, which will be filed without opposition and with a 

request to be reviewed on an expedited basis. 

WHEREAS, Verizon and Sprint do not seek this extension for the purposes of delay but to 

allow the parties to facilitate the orderly consolidation of similar lawsuits, to conduct efficient 

settlement discussions, and to conserve the resources of the parties and the Court. 

WHEREAS, all parties to this action have consented to this extension of time to respond. 

THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby stipulated that: 

Verizon’s time to answer or otherwise respond to Sprint’s Complaint will be extended for 

an additional 7 days, from October 8 until October 15, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01257-MCE-CKD Document 44 Filed 10/08/14 Page 2 of 4
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

24533676.1 -3-

JOINT STIPULATION 

Sprint and Verizon collectively request that the Court grant Verizon this additional time to 

answer or otherwise respond to Sprint’s Complaint. 

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October, 2014. 

DATED: October 1, 2014 ALBORG MARTIN & BUDDE LLP 

 DARRELL C. MARTIN 

DENAE H. BUDDE 

2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1010 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

STEESE, EVANS & FRANKEL, P.C. 

 CHARLES W. STEESE 

 JOHN T. OSGOOD 

 KIMBERLY A. SMILEY 

 6400 S. Fiddlers Green Cir., 

 Suite 1820 

 Denver, CO 80111 

By: /s/ Charles W. Steese 

 Charles W. Steese 

As authorized on October 1, 2014 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS 

COMPANY L.P. 

 

DATED: October 1, 2014 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

Case 2:14-cv-01257-MCE-CKD Document 44 Filed 10/08/14 Page 3 of 4
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

24533676.1 -4-

JOINT STIPULATION 

 HENRY WEISSMANN 

TAMERLIN J. GODLEY 

MARGARET G. MARASCHINO 

355 South Grand Avenue 

Thirty-Fifth Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 

Telephone: (213) 683-9100 

Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 

By: /s/ Tamerlin J. Godley 

 Tamerlin J. Godley 

 

Attorneys for Defendant VERIZON CALIFORNIA, 

INC. 

 

DATED: October 1, 2014 MAYER BROWN LLP 

 MATTHEW H. MARMOLEJO 

350 South Grand Avenue 

25th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 

213-229-9500-9483 

213-625-0248 (fax) 

By: /s/ Matthew H. Marmolejo 

 Matthew H. Marmolejo 

As authorized on October 1, 2014 

 

Attorneys for Defendant PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE 

COMPANY 

 

ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 8, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-01257-MCE-CKD Document 44 Filed 10/08/14 Page 4 of 4