Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02209-L-WMC

Document 19

Filed 03/05/2008

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

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. Andrew S. Friedman (to be admitted pro hac vice) Garrett W. Wotkyns (admitted pro hac vice) 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. Todd D. Carpenter (CA 234464) 501 West Broadway Suite 1450 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6978 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RANDY NUNEZ, on Behalf of Himself, and ) ) All Others Similarly Situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a ) Washington corporation, and BUNGIE, ) ) L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability ) Company, ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV NO. 07cv2209-L (WMC)

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION SEEKING LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 12(b)(6) AND RULE 9(b) AND [PROPOSED] ORDER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION; DECLARATION OF TODD D. CARPENTER; AND PLAINTIFF'S SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT UNDER RULE
12(b)(6) AND RULE 9(b) Judge: Hon. M. James Lorenz

Plaintiff hereby applies to the Court ex parte for an Order granting Plaintiff leave to file Plaintiff's Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint 1 06-CV-1012 WQH RBB

Case 3:07-cv-02209-L-WMC

Document 19

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 2 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

Under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b) (hereinafter referred to as "Defendants' Motion" or "Motion"). Defendants' counsel objects to Plaintiff's ex parte request. A Surreply is both necessary and appropriate here, as Defendants have raised for the first time in their Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b) ("Reply Mem.") several new and important arguments ­ among them, that "[t]he Song-Beverly Act does not supersede the [Uniform] Commercial Code's requirement of pre-suit notice before bringing a breach of warranty claim" and that Mocek v. Alpha Leisure, 114 Cal. App. 4th 402 (Cal. App. 4 Dist., 2003) is irrelevant to whether pre-suit notice is required for Song-Beverly Act implied warranty claims. (Reply Mem. at 4-5.) Plaintiff's application is supported by the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Todd D. Carpenter, and the Court's case file.

Dated March 5, 2008

/s/Todd D. Carpenter_______________________ BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (to be admitted Pro Hac Vice) Garrett W. Wotkyns (admitted pro hac vice) Todd D. Carpenter (CA Bar 234464) 501 West Broadway Suite 1450 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6978 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 Attorneys for Plaintiff

2 06-CV-1012 WQH RBB