Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05069/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-05069-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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 

CASE NO. CV-08-05069 SBA, CV-08-05071 SBA 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

40753-0043/LEGAL18042236.2

Brian Hennessy (SBN 226721) 

E-mail: BHennessy@perkinscoie.com

Perkins Coie LLP 

101 Jefferson Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025-1114 

Telephone: (650) 838-4300 

Facsimile: (650) 838-4350 

Elizabeth L. McDougall, WA Bar No. 27026 (pro hac vice) 

E-mail: EMcDougall@perkinscoie.com 

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 

Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 

Telephone: (206) 359-8000 

Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

craigslist, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

craigslist, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Autoposterpro, Inc., PostingExperts, Inc., 

Roman Hossain, John Doe d/b/a 

craigslistadsstore.com and 

craigslistpromoting.com, and Does 2 

through 25, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV-08-05069 SBA, CV-08-05071 SBA 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO REOPEN AND CONSOLIDATE 

ACTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES 

Dept: Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor 

Before: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong 

craigslist, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Brad Johnson, Jake Carter, William 

Mitchell, Roman Hossain, John Doe d/b/a 

craigslistshop.com, and Does 2 through 25, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case 4:08-cv-05069-SBA Document 52 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 5 Case4:08-cv-05069-SBA Document51 Filed04/13/10 Page1 of 5
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 

CASE NO. CV-08-05069 SBA, CV-08-05071 SBA 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

40753-0043/LEGAL18042236.2

WHEREAS, on November 5, 2008, craigslist, Inc. (“craigslist”) filed craigslist, Inc. v. 

Autoposterpro, Inc., PostingExperts, Inc., John Doe d/b/a craigslistadsstore.com and 

craigslistpromoting.com, and Does 2 through 25, inclusive (Case No.: CV-08-05069 SBA) 

(“Present Action”), for various causes of action based on their operation of the websites 

autoposterpro.com, postingexperts.com, craigslistadsstore.com, and craigslistpromoting.com, 

which provided auto-posting services in violation of craigslist’s terms of use. 

WHEREAS, on February 2, 2009, craigslist, Inc. filed its First Amended Complaint, 

naming Roman Hossain in the Present Action. Present Action DKT#19. 

WHEREAS, on November 5, 2008, craigslist, Inc. filed craigslist, Inc., a Delaware 

corporation, v. Brad Johnson, Jake Carter, William Mitchell, John Doe d/b/a craigslistshop.com, 

and Does 2 through 25, inclusive (Case No.: CV-08 05071 SBA) (“Related Case”), for various 

causes of action based on their operation of the craigslistshop.com website, which provided autoposting services in violation of craigslist’s terms of use.

WHEREAS, on February 5, 2009, craigslist, Inc. filed its First Amended Complaint, 

naming Roman Hossain in the Related Case. Related Case DKT#12. 

WHEREAS, on March 5, 2009, the Court ruled that the Present Action and the Related 

Case were “Related Cases” pursuant to Local Rule 3-12(a), and re-assigned the Related Case to 

this Court (DKT #25). 

WHEREAS, the Present Action and the Related Case were set for a settlement conference 

on February 23, 2010 before Magistrate Edward M. Chen. 

WHEREAS, on February 9, 2010, the parties sent a joint letter to Magistrate Edward M. 

Chen advising him that the parties had reached an agreement resolving the claims between them 

and that they were in the process of obtaining client signatures on the settlement agreement. 

WHEREAS, on February 10, 2010, the Court issued a Clerk’s Notice vacating the 

February 23, 2010 settlement conference (DKT #45). 

WHEREAS, the parties thereafter executed the settlement agreement, which resolves the 

claims made in the Related Case and Present Action.

Case 4:08-cv-05069-SBA Document 52 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 5 Case4:08-cv-05069-SBA Document51 Filed04/13/10 Page2 of 5
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 

CASE NO. CV-08-05069 SBA, CV-08-05071 SBA 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

40753-0043/LEGAL18042236.2

WHEREAS, the settlement agreement requires that the parties stipulate to consolidation 

of the Related Case and Present Action. 

WHEREAS, the settlement agreement requires that within three (3) business days of the 

Court entering an Order consolidating the Related Case and Present Action, the parties shall 

execute and assent to entry of a single Final Judgment on Consent and, thereafter, file the same 

with the Court. 

WHEREAS, the parties were in the process of finalizing this stipulation to consolidate the 

Related Case and Present Action, when the Court entered an Order on April 1, 2010, 

conditionally dismissing the Present Action (Dkt. #46) and the Related Case (DKT #38). 

WHEREAS, the parties hereby stipulate to reopen and consolidate the Present Action and 

Related Case for the purpose of filing the single Final Judgment on Consent, as provided by the 

parties’ settlement agreement. 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, the Present Action and the 

Related Case involve the same named Defendant and also involve common questions of law and 

fact, including the same causes of action and very similar fact patterns. 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Related Case should be consolidated with the 

Present Action for the purpose of filing the single Final Judgment on Consent, as provided by the 

parties’ settlement agreement, and that all future filings shall be filed only in the Present Action. 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the complaint attached as Exhibit A to this Stipulation 

(“Consolidated Complaint”), should be the operative complaint governing the consolidated 

action. 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Consolidated Complaint shall be deemed filed in 

the Present Action as of the date of the execution of this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order by the 

Court. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Case 4:08-cv-05069-SBA Document 52 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 5 Case4:08-cv-05069-SBA Document51 Filed04/13/10 Page3 of 5
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 4 

CASE NO. CV-08-05069 SBA, CV-08-05071 SBA 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

40753-0043/LEGAL18042236.2

DATED: April 12, 2010 PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ Brian Hennessy 

Brian Hennessy (SBN 226721) 

BHennessy@perkinscoie.com 

Elizabeth L. McDougall (WA Bar No. 27026) 

EMcDougall@perkinscoie.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

craigslist, Inc. 

DATED: April 12, 2010 HYDE & SWIGART 

By: /s/ Joshua B. Swigart 

Joshua B. Swigart (SBN 225557) 

josh@westcoastlitigation.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Roman Hossain 

I, Brian Hennessy, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, that the 

concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto. 

DATED: April 12, 2010 PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ Brian Hennessy 

Brian Hennessy (SBN 226721) 

BHennessy@perkinscoie.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

craigslist, Inc. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

The Present Action and Related Case are reopened. 

The Related Case is consolidated with the Present Action for the purpose of filing the 

single Final Judgment on Consent, as provided by the parties’ settlement agreement, and all 

future filings shall be filed only in the Present Action. 

The Consolidated Complaint is the operative complaint governing the consolidated action. 

Case 4:08-cv-05069-SBA Document 52 Filed 06/03/10 Page 4 of 5 Case4:08-cv-05069-SBA Document51 Filed04/13/10 Page4 of 5
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 5 

CASE NO. CV-08-05069 SBA, CV-08-05071 SBA 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

40753-0043/LEGAL18042236.2

The Consolidated Complaint shall be deemed filed in the Present Action as of the date of 

the execution of this Order by the Court. 

Rationale of Decision

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, the Court finds that the Present Action 

and Related Case involve common questions of law and fact, including the same named 

Defendant, the same causes of action, and very similar fact patterns. Present Action DKT # 19; 

Related Case DKT #12. 

Dated: _____________ _______________________________ 

 Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Case 4:08-cv-05069-SBA Document 52 Filed 06/03/10 Page 5 of 5 Case4:08-cv-05069-SBA Document51 Filed04/13/10 Page5 of 5