Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00709/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00709-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AT&T Mobility LLC
Defendant
AT&T, Inc.
Defendant
Alina Bekkerman
Plaintiff
California Board of Equalization
Defendant
Cellco Partnership
Defendant
Brandon Griffith
Plaintiff
Jenny Lee
Plaintiff
Charles Lisser
Plaintiff
Sprint Corporation
Defendant
Sprint Solutions, Inc.
Defendant
State of California
Defendant
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Defendant
Verizon Communications, Inc.
Defendant
Verizon Wireless
Defendant

Document Text:

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

SMRH:477931914.1 1

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

A Limited Liability Partnership

Including Professional Corporations

FRED R. PUGLISI, Cal. Bar No. 121822

VALERIE E. ALTER, Cal. Bar No. 239905

JAY T. RAMSEY, Cal. Bar No. 273160

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600

Los Angeles, California 90067-6055

Telephone: 310.228.3700

Facsimile: 310.228.3701

Email: fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com

valter@sheppardmullin.com

jramsey@sheppardmullin.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALINA BEKKERMAN; BRANDON

GRIFFITH; JENNY LEE; and CHARLES

LISSER,

Plaintiffs and Petitioners,

v.

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF

EQUALIZATION; STATE OF

CALIFORNIA; AT&T, INC.; SPRINT

CORPORATION; T-MOBILE US, INC.;

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;

and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,

Defendants and Respondents.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00709-MCE-EFB

JOINT STIPULATION TO 

CONTINUE DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO 

RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 144; 

ORDER THEREON

Case 2:16-cv-00709-MCE-EFB Document 16 Filed 06/07/16 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

SMRH:477931914.1 2

Plaintiffs Alina Bekkerman, Brandon Griffith, Jenny Lee, and Charles Lisser 

(collectively “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand, and Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC 

(“AT&T”), Sprint Solutions, Inc. (“Sprint”), T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”), and 

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) (collectively, the “Carrier

Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as 

follows:

Whereas Plaintiffs filed their initial putative class action Complaint on February 5, 

2016 in Sacramento Superior Court against defendants, which the Superior Court ruled 

was a related case to the same plaintiffs’ previously filed Writ Petition challenging the 

legality of Board of Equalization Regulation 1585;

Whereas Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks monetary remedies and declaratory and 

injunctive relief;

Whereas Defendant AT&T removed Plaintiffs’ Complaint to this Court on April 4, 

2016;

Whereas Defendant California Board of Equalization, State of California 

(“CBOE”) and Plaintiffs have stated their intention to file motions to remand with a 

hearing date of August 25, 2016;

Whereas Plaintiffs and the Carrier Defendants agree that Plaintiffs’ and the CBOE’s 

respective remand motions should be heard and decided prior to the Carrier Defendants 

being required to respond to the Complaint in this Court;

Whereas the Carrier Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Complaint is currently 

June 6, 2016;

It is hereby STIPULATED and AGREED pursuant to Local Rule 144 that:

The Carrier Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended 

from June 6, 2016 to two weeks after the Court’s order on the remand motions becomes 

final, or September 12, 2016, whichever is later. 

Case 2:16-cv-00709-MCE-EFB Document 16 Filed 06/07/16 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

SMRH:477931914.1 3

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: June 2, 2016

HATTIS LAW

By /s Daniel M. Hattis (as authorized on 6/2/16)

DANIEL M. HATTIS

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 2, 2016

MAYER BROWN LLP

By /s Donald M. Falk (as authorized on 6/1/16)

DONALD M. FALK

Attorneys for Defendant 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC

Dated: June 2, 2016

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

By /s Rochelle Wilcox (as authorized on 6/1/16)

ROCHELLE WILCOX

Attorneys for Defendant 

T-MOBILE USA, INC.

Dated: June 2, 2016

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

By /s Fred R. Puglisi

FRED R. PUGLISI

VALERIE E. ALTER

JAY T. RAMSEY

Attorneys for Defendant 

SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.

Case 2:16-cv-00709-MCE-EFB Document 16 Filed 06/07/16 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

SMRH:477931914.1 4

Dated: June 2, 2016

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

By /s Rosemarie T. Ring (as authorized on 6/1/16)

HENRY WEISSMAN

ROSEMARIE T. RING

Attorneys for Defendant 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS

ORDER

Good cause having been shown pursuant to the Joint Stipulation To Continue 

Defendants’ Time To Respond To Complaint, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Carrier Defendants’ deadline to respond to the 

Complaint is extended from June 6, 2016 to two weeks after the Court’s order on the 

remand motions becomes final, or September 12, 2016, whichever is later.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00709-MCE-EFB Document 16 Filed 06/07/16 Page 4 of 4