Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01208/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01208-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jingle Networks, Inc.
Defendant
Limbo, Inc.
Defendant
Sandra Reyes
Plaintiff

Document Text:

STIPULATION TO STAY 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

ALAN HIMMELFARB (SBN 90480)

Email: ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com

KAMBEREDELSON, LLP

2757 Leonis Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90058

Tel: 323.585.8696

Fax: 323.585.6195

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SANDRA REYES and the putative class

Kevin K. Eng

Email: keng@mzclaw.com

Markun Zusman & Compton LLP 

465 California Street 

Suite 500 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Tel: 415.438.4515 

Fax: 415.434.4505

Thad Alan Davis

Email: Thad.Davis@ropesgray.com

Ropes & Gray LLP 

One Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3711 

Tel: 415.315.6300 

Fax: 415.315.6350 

Attorneys for Defendants

JINGLE NETWORKS, INC.

LIMBO, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SANDRA REYES, individually and on behalf 

of a class of similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

JINGLE NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, and LIMBO, INC., a Delaware 

corporation,

Defendants.

Case No. C 09 01208

STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARILY 

DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH 

PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 

SETTLEMENT WITH M-QUBE, INC.

Judge: Charles R. Breyer

Action Filed: February 11, 2009

Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 1 of 62
2

STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARY DISMISS

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

Plaintiff SANDRA REYES (“Plaintiff” or “Reyes”) and Defendants JINGLE 

NETWORKS, INC. (“Jingle”) and LIMBO, INC. (“Limbo”) (collectively “Defendants”), pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Court voluntarily 

dismiss the Complaint against the Defendants with prejudice. The Parties shall bear their own 

costs except as otherwise provided herein. In support of this Stipulation, the Parties state as 

follows:

WHEREAS, on February 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against 

Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, seeking damages 

and injunctive relief related to allegedly unauthorized text messages sent by Defendants;

WHEREAS, both before and after the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s counsel was 

notified that defense counsel would seek fees and costs incurred in defending what Defendants 

believe are meritless claims;

WHEREAS, on March 19, 2009, Jingle removed the case to this Court pursuant to the 

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (codified in various sections of 

28 U.S.C.) (“CAFA”);

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2009, Limbo filed a subsequent notice of removal to this Court 

pursuant to CAFA, which removal was assigned to Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton under Case No. C 

09-1232 (PJH);

WHEREAS, on April 20, 2009, Plaintiff moved to remand the case back to San Mateo 

Superior Court and, as part of her motion, moved to relate the case before this Court;

WHEREAS, by Order dated April 21, 2009, the Court related the case assigned to Judge 

Hamilton to the instant action;

WHEREAS, June 11, 2009, Plaintiff withdrew her motion to remand the case back to San 

Mateo Superior Court;

WHEREAS, July 10, 2009, Defendants moved the Court to dismiss the Complaint 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), which remains pending before this Court;

WHEREAS, Defendants vigorously deny any wrongdoing in connection with the abovecaptioned action.

Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 2 of 62
3

STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARY DISMISS

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

WHEREAS, an aggregator known as m-Qube, Inc. (“m-Qube”), a company which 

transmitted certain premium SMS text messages at issue in this case (i.e., those from 

Mobilefunster, Inc.), has entered into a nationwide class action settlement which affords Plaintiff 

full monetary compensation for such charges at issue in this matter and which would, upon her 

participation in such settlement, resolve such claims asserted in this case.1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and her counsel no longer wish to pursue her claims for the 

remaining non-premium SMS text messages at issue in this case. 

 (See “Stipulation of 

Class Action Settlement,” a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) 

Judge Stewart L. Palmer of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, granted preliminary 

approval to the class action settlement on November 3, 2009 in the case entitled Edward Parone, 

et al. v. m-Qube, Inc., et al., No. 08 CH 15834 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois). Judge 

Palmer has set the Final Fairness Hearing for February 24, 2010. (See “Court Order Granting 

Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement, a true and accurate copy of which is 

attached hereto as Exhibit B.)

WHEREAS, in light of Plaintiff’s participation in the m-Qube Settlement, Plaintiff seeks 

to voluntarily dismiss the Complaint against Defendants with prejudice and with the Parties to 

bear their own costs except as set forth herein;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and her counsel have confirmed that she will not file suit against 

Defendants in this or any other forum under any legal theories related to the alleged misconduct 

set forth in the Complaint;

WHEREAS, if Plaintiff and/or her present counsel at KamberEdelson LLP or a successor 

firm file suit against Defendants in this or any other forum under any legal theories related to the 

alleged misconduct set forth in the Complaint, Defendants shall be permitted to pursue recovery of 

their fees and costs associated with defending this action from the Plaintiff (if she is involved in 

 

1 As of the date of this stipulation, Plaintiff has filed a claim in the m-Qube settlement and thereby 

participated in such settlement. 

Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 3 of 62
4

STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARY DISMISS

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

the subsequent proceedings) and/or from Plaintiffs’ counsel (if they file on behalf of other putative 

class members);

WHEREAS, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) provides that “an action may be dismissed by the 

plaintiff with order of court ... (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who 

have appeared in the action;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel has conferred with counsel for the Defendants and is 

authorized to state that Defendants have no objection, and indeed support, the voluntary dismissal 

with prejudice requested herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree to the following:

1. The Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1), and Plaintiff will not assert any other causes of action against Defendants in this or any 

other forum stemming from the alleged misconduct set forth in the Complaint.

2. The Parties shall bear their own costs except as otherwise provided herein.

3. The Clerk of the Court is to mark this case as closed.

Dated: December 30, 2009 KAMBEREDELSON, LLP

By: ____________/s/________________________

Alan Himmelfarb 

Attorney for Plaintiff Sandra Reyes

Dated: December 30, 2009 ROPES & GRAY, LLP

By: ______________/s/______________________

Thad Alan Davis

Attorney for Defendant Jingle Networks, Inc.

Dated: December 30, 2009 MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP

By: _____________/s/______________________

Kevin K. Eng

Attorney for Defendant Limbo, Inc.

Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 4 of 62
5

STIPULATION TO VOLUNTARY DISMISS

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________________

HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: January 12, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 5 of 62
Exhibit A 

Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 6 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 7 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 8 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 9 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 10 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 11 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 12 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 13 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 14 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 15 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 16 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 17 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 18 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 19 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 20 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 21 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 22 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 23 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 24 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 25 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 26 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 27 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 28 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 29 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 30 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 31 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 32 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 33 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 34 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 35 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 36 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 37 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 38 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 39 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 40 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 41 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 42 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 43 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 44 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 45 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 46 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 47 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 48 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 49 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 50 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 51 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 52 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 53 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 54 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 55 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 56 of 62
Exhibit B 

Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 57 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 58 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 59 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 60 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 61 of 62
Case 3:09-cv-01208-CRB Document 38 Filed 01/13/10 Page 62 of 62