Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

'· Case 1:05-cv-009143hJF Document 21-34 Filed 2/2006 Paget of 4
` '* lj
gpm ___\ml,,t· Ftteoev
H7 ‘ J ~·····-·—-··~—--——·-——-— ”
C IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 g 2005
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
wnsrnmi n1v1s1oN ’*F¥i2s*§‘£‘iiSa%.$?3'J£“*
U. 3. Distrlct Court
W- D. OF TN, Mamphlg
CORY WILES, individually and on behalf i
of himself and all persons similarly situated, 1
Plaintiff, ,_ 1O , __ss W __ss ssm_ .,ss._..a t
v. p .s.. .sss 05-2605 B/An
= . ; li li
~;I ¤‘
:». .. tl _¤‘” i 2 if = 4a»:-- »
INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware ;
Corporation, , =--e -- 1,; ~~,· ,;;.:1;,;g.‘.‘.f;2‘;;j;ggg‘§
·,`` i F 1 tz .. ‘
,_____ ____j;.;- »..V ~~-—~-—~-~——~--——~-· U ,_;
Defendant. T A _
DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ’
ITS MOTION TO STAY PLAINTIFF’S REMAND MOTION,
WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel") respectfully seeks leave of the Court to file a brief
Reply in support of its motion to stay consideration of Plaintiff Corey Wiles’ Motion to Remand.
The grotmds for this Request are as follows:
Plaintiff commenced this action on July 15, 2005 in Tennessee state court. On August 1
18, 2005, Intel timely removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Upon
removal, this action became one of 71 federal actions subject to a pending transfer and
consolidation petition before the Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1407. On September 2, 2005, plaintiff moved to remand the case. On September 20, 2005, Intel
asked this Court to stay consideration of that Motion pending the transfer of this action to the
MDL court. ‘
SFl`2164U464.1

· Case 1 :05-cv-00914;,J%lF Document 21 -34 Filed 01712/2006 Page 2 of 4
I I K-/in I\.r-/4
in its opposition papers] plaintiff urges that the Court should not impose a stay because
his case is "different" that the other 53 MDL cases that assert identical Tennessee Antitrust Act
claims on behalf of the same purported class of Tennessee residents. lnte1’s proposed reply brief ,
demonstrates that this contention is meaningless. The operative question is whether plaintiffs .

remand motion implicates factual and legal issues that overlap with other actions that are part of I
MDL 1717. lnte1’s proposed reply brief refutes plaintiffs assertion in his opposition that this is g
not the case. Plaintiffs remand motion centers on the aggregate value of the claim that he
asserts.2 Intel presented objective evidence regarding the aggregate value of this claim, to which U
the plaintiff conclusorily objects without presenting any rebutting facts.3 Intel submits that its
proposed reply will aid the Court in its decision on this important question. A copy of the
proposed reply is attached as Exhibit A. I
u
I Although titled an opposition to lntel’s stay motion, only one paragraph addresses the
stay motion; the remainder is a reply brief to plaintiffs remand motion for which Plaintiff did
not seek or obtain leave to file.
2 The parties disagree on who bears the burden to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff cites the only case, Schwartz v. Comcast Corp., 2005 WL 1799414 (E.D. Pa. July 28,
2005), that ignores the express intention of Congress on this point. Nearly every other reported
decision on this point have held that CAFA shifted the burden to the party opposing removal.
See Intel’s Opp. at 6. Accord Yeroushalmi v. Blockbuster Inc., 2005 WL 2083008, *3 (C.D. Cal.,
July 11, 2005); Waitt v. Merck & Co., 2005 WL 1799740, *2 (W.D. Wash., July 27, 2005);
Berry v. American Express PubI’g, 2005 WL 1941151, *4 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2005); Harvey v.
Blockbuster, Inc., 384 F. Supp. 2d 749, 752 (D.N.J. 2005); In re T extainer P’shzjo Secs. Litig.,
2005 WL 1791559, *3 (N.D. Cal., July 27, 2005).
3 Plaintiff disparages Intel’s estimated valuation as "speculation" and "hearsay." (D.1. 15 at
4). Intel, however, has presented objective facts from which the Court can estimate the
aggregate value of the asserted claim based upon plaintyj"s own factual allegations. This is
proper under CAFA. See, eg., Senteijitt v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., 2005 WL 2100594, *4 (S.D.
Ga. Aug. 31, 2005) (accepting defendant’s estimate of the transactions for which plaintiff sought
$15 statutory damages).
SFl2164D464.1 2

'~ Case 1 :05-cv-0091¢?,1<1F Document 21-34 Filed 01712/2006 Page 3 of 4
I ° K L2
I
Respectfully submitted,
BURCH, PORTER & JOHNSON, PLLC
I
DATED: October 18, 2005 U/\
Jef F ` e n (#7677)
Mary Ha (#21878)
130 North Court Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103 Ei
Telephone: 901.524.5000
Facsimile: 90l.524.5024
[email protected] I
I
I;
and
I David M. Balabanian (CA# 37638) _
‘ Christopher B. Hockett (CA# 121539) E?
Joy K. Fuyuno (CA # 123890)
BIN GI-IAM McCUTCHEN LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 _
Telephone: 415.393.2000
Facsimile: 4l5.393.2286
Richard A. Ripley (DC# 412959)
BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 800 .-
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202.778.6150
Facsimile: 202.778.6155
Attorneys for Defendant
INTEL CORPORATION E
I
SFf2‘I640464.1 3

`1 Case 1:05-cv—OO914;*1F Document 21-34 Filed 91{12/2006 Page 4 of 4
. t I _ `1
\./“ \-_./ =
E CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via U.S.
Mail, postage prepaid, B.] . Wade, Esq., Glassman, Edwards, Wade & Wyatt, P.C., 26 North
Second Street, Memphis, Tennessee, 38103, on this 18th day of October 2005. i
Mary a; =
I
l
l
1
I
l
l
SF1'21640464,1 4