Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00489/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00489-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

Lee Cirsch (CA State Bar No. 227668)

THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 

10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400

Los Angeles, California 90024

Telephone: 310-277-5100

Facsimile: 310-277-5103

lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com

W. Mark Lanier Pending Pro Hac Vice

wml@lanierlawfirm.com

Eugene R. Egdorf Pending Pro Hac Vice

gene.egdorf@lanierlawfirm.com

Benjamin T. Major Pending Pro Hac Vice

ben.major@lanierlawfirm.com

Ryan D. Ellis Pending Pro Hac Vice

ryan.ellis@lanierlawfirm.com

THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 

6810 FM 1960 West

Houston, Texas 77069

Telephone: 713-659-5200

Facsimile: 713-659-2204

Arthur R. Miller Pending Pro Hac Vice

Arthur.miller@lanierlawfirm.com

THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PLLC

126 East 56th Street, 6th Floor

Tower 56

New York, New York 10022

Telephone: 212-421-2800

Facsimile: 212-421-2878

Attorneys for Class Representative 

Plaintiffs, William Michael Hicks and

Kenneth Harms, et. al. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

William Michael Hicks and Kenneth 

Harms, as Class Representative Plaintiffs, 

et. al

Plaintiffs,

vs.

PGA TOUR, Inc., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:15-cv-00489-VC

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED)

ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00489-VC Document 35 Filed 03/20/15 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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER - 1 - CASE NO. 3:15-cv-00489-VC. 

Plaintiffs William Michael Hicks and Kenneth Harms, as Proposed Class Representative 

Plaintiffs, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant PGA TOUR, Inc. (“Defendant”), through their 

respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this matter on February 3, 2015;

WHEREAS service of Plaintiffs’ original complaint, summons, and supporting documents 

was effected on or about February 11, 2015;

WHEREAS this Court, based on the parties’ previous stipulation [Doc. No. 16], extended 

the deadlines for Defendant’s initial responsive pleadings;

WHEREAS Defendant filed its Motion to Change Venue [Doc. No. 25] on March 5, 2015;

WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 28] on March 16, 2015;

WHEREAS Defendant may seek to supplement its motion to transfer venue to address the 

parties and allegations added to the First Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS Plaintiffs intend to seek venue discovery and resolve venue discovery disputes 

before Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue becomes due and before 

briefing is complete on Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue;

WHEREAS the parties have previously agreed that such discovery, which Defendant has 

reserved the right to oppose, would affect any briefing schedule on Defendant’s Motion to Change 

Venue.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1:

1. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue will 

be adjourned pending completion of venue discovery and resolution of venue discovery disputes, 

if any; 

2. On or before March 25, 2015 Plaintiffs will serve Defendant with venue discovery 

requests limited to issues related to Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue;

3. Upon service of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and Defendant’s responses and 

objections, the parties will promptly meet and confer regarding the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests, 

the scheduling of any response to those requests, Defendant’s objections and claims of privilege, 

and all other matters relating to Plaintiffs’ requests;

Case 3:15-cv-00489-VC Document 35 Filed 03/20/15 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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER - 2 - CASE NO. 3:15-cv-00489-VC. 

4. On or before April 3, 2015, Defendant will file any supplemental papers to its 

venue transfer motion to address the new factual allegations and new parties set forth in the First 

Amended Complaint.

5. Plaintiffs will file a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Change Venue no later than 

21 days following completion of venue discovery and resolution of any venue discovery disputes;

6. Defendant will answer, move, or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiffs’ First 

Amended Complaint within 30 days of the entry of an order on its Motion to Change Venue;

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this Stipulation does not constitute a 

waiver of any claim, objection or defense, including objections to discovery and other discovery 

disputes, unless expressly addressed herein.

Dated: March 18, 2015 THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.

By: _ /s/ Lee Cirsch

 Lee Cirsch

Lee Cirsch (CA State Bar No. 227668)

W. Mark Lanier Pending Pro Hac Vice

Eugene R. Egdorf Pending Pro Hac Vice

Benjamin T. Major Pending Pro Hac Vice

Ryan D. Ellis Pending Pro Hac Vice

Arthur R. Miller Pending Pro Hac Vice

Attorneys for Class Representative Plaintiffs, William 

Michael Hicks and Kenneth Harms, et. al.

Dated: March 18, 2015 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP

By: /s/ Raoul D. Kennedy

Raoul D. Kennedy (Bar No. 40892)

Jeffrey A. Mishkin admitted Pro Hac Vice

Anthony J. Dreyer admitted Pro Hac Vice

Attorneys for Defendant PGA Tour, Inc.

EFC ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that concurrence in 

the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories above.

/s/Lee Cirsch

Case 3:15-cv-00489-VC Document 35 Filed 03/20/15 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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER - 3 - CASE NO. 3:15-cv-00489-VC. 

PROPOSED ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2015

_________

The Honorable Vince Chhabria

 United States District Court Judge

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

DENIED

Judge Vince Chhabria

The proposed stipulation is denied. 

The parties should submit a revised stipulation 

that includes a due date for the opposition to the 

transfer motion and a date for the hearing on that motion.

Case 3:15-cv-00489-VC Document 35 Filed 03/20/15 Page 4 of 4