Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00819/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00819-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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 - MDL 1750/05cv0819

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: 

JAMSTER MARKETING LITIGATION,

MDL NO. 1751

Master File: 05cv0819 JM(CAB)

ORDER DENYING AT&T’S

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER

SHORTENING TIME; DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME;

PERMITTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE

SUR-REPLY 

This document relates to all cases.

Defendants Cingular Wireless, LLC, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., New Cingular Wireless

Services, and AT&T Mobility (collectively “AT&T”) move to shorten time to hear their pending

Motion to Confirm Plan of Implementation For McFerren Settlement (“Motion”) so that it may be

heard prior to November 17, 2008. A hearing on AT&T’s Motion is currently calendared for

December 12, 2008. Plaintiffs oppose the application. AT&T argues that it desires to obtain a ruling

on its Motion prior to a December 8, 2008 hearing scheduled before judge Bonner in the Fulton

County Superior Court. The failure to shorten time may require AT&T to request a continuance of

the December 8, 2008 hearing before Judge Bonner. (Motion at p.2:10-13). The court denies the

motion. The court has “inherent authority to control its dockets.” Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.

Co. v. Hercules, 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.1998). In light of the court’s calendar and trial

schedule, an earlier hearing on the Motion has the potential to disrupt other civil and criminal matters

Case 3:05-cv-00819-JM-CAB Document 294 Filed 10/29/08 Page 1 of 2
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 - MDL 1750/05cv0819

pending before this court. Consequently, the court denies AT&T’s application. 

On October 23, 2008 Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to continue the motion to dismiss

presently set for calendar on November 6, 2008. Defendants oppose the application. Plaintiffs seek

to continue the November 6, 2008 hearing until December 12, 2008 in order to provide further briefing

(1) concerning the scope of this court’s MDL jurisdiction as set forth in the September 29, 2008

Injunction Order and (2) responding to Defendants’ arguments in the reply briefs related to the court’s

September 29, 2008 Injunction Order. In light of this court’s heavy civil and criminal calendar, the

court denies the application to continue the hearing. However, the court grants Plaintiffs leave to file

a sur-reply of no more than ten pages in length. Plaintiffs shall file the sur-reply no later than by

November 3, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.

In sum, the court denies AT&T’s ex parte application for an order shortening time, denies

Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for an enlargement of time, and grants Plaintiffs leave to file a ten-page

sur-reply by November 3, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 29, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:05-cv-00819-JM-CAB Document 294 Filed 10/29/08 Page 2 of 2