Free Response to Order to Show Cause - District Court of California - California


File Size: 14.2 kB
Pages: 2
Date: July 21, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 356 Words, 2,272 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/casd/258850/39-1.pdf

Download Response to Order to Show Cause - District Court of California ( 14.2 kB)


Preview Response to Order to Show Cause - District Court of California
Case 3:07-cv-02231-RJB

Document 39

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 JAMES J. MITTERMILLER, Cal. Bar No. 85177 [email protected] 2 FRANK J. POLEK, Cal. Bar No. 167852 [email protected] 3 JOHN C. DINEEN, Cal. Bar No. 222095 [email protected] 4 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 5 501 West Broadway, 19th Floor 6 San Diego, California 92101-3598 Telephone: 619-338-6500 7 Facsimile: 619-234-3815 8 Attorneys for Defendants SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC. and SPRINT 9 SPECTRUM L.P. 10 11 12 13 14 UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK and ERIC TAYLOR, on 15 behalf of themselves, their members and/or all others similarly situated, as applicable, 16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.; and SPRINT 19 SPECTRUM L.P.; 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
W02-WEST:8JCD1\400943240.1 USDC Case No. 07 CV 2231 RJB DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 07 CV 2231 RJB DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

Defendants.

Judge: Courtroom: Date: Time:

Hon. Robert J. Bryan To Be Assigned July 25, 2008 N/A

Case 3:07-cv-02231-RJB

Document 39

Filed 07/21/2008

Page 2 of 2

1

Defendants Sprint Solutions, Inc. and Sprint Spectrum L.P. (collectively

2 "Sprint") hereby submit their response regarding the Court's Order to Show Cause Why 3 Action Should Not Be Dismissed. Sprint disputes the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' 4 complaints (including Plaintiffs' original and amended complaints). However, Sprint does 5 not dispute Plaintiffs' contention (set forth in their brief in response to the Order to Show 6 Cause) that the complaint(s) properly allege original jurisdiction under the Class Action 7 Fairness Act, including the required amount in controversy. 8 9 Dated: July 21, 2008 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
W02-WEST:8JCD1\400943240.1 USDC Case No. 07 CV 2231 RJB

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

By

/s/ James J. Mittermiller JAMES J. MITTERMILLER Attorneys for Defendants SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC. and SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. E-mail: [email protected]

-1-

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE