`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`
`THIS RELATES TO:
`
`ALL END-PAYOR ACTIONS
`
`
`
`MASTER FILE CASE NO. 12-md-02311
`
`
`
`HON. SEAN F. COX
`MAG. JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
`END-PAYOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FINANCIAL RECOVERY
`SERVICES, LLC’S REQUEST TO HEAR ITS MOTION TO COMPEL
`ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF VEHICLE DATA
`ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS
`
`
`
`End-Payor Plaintiffs’ (“EPPs”) respectfully request that the Court deny non-party Financial
`
`Recovery Services, LLC’s (“FRS”) request to hear its motion to compel acceptance and processing
`
`of vehicle data (ECF No. 2114) on an expedited basis. In addition to the fact that FRS is not a party
`
`to these proceedings, having already been denied intervenor status in this litigation, and therefore
`
`has no right to file any motions at all, FRS cites no Local Rule or legal authority supporting its
`
`request to compel EPPs to respond to its motion on an expedited basis. To the contrary, Local Rule
`
`7.1(e)(2) sets forth the briefing schedule for any non-dispositive motion. That rule states that the
`
`party opposing the motion has “14 days after service of the motion” to file a response. LR
`
`7.1(e)(2)(B). “If filed, a reply brief supporting a nondispositive motion must be filed within 7 days
`
`after service of the response.” LR 7.1(e)(2)(C). FRS unilaterally seeks to impose an expedited
`
`schedule that would leave EPPs with only a week to respond to its motion while allowing FRS to
`
`file a reply.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2115, PageID.38429 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`FRS has provided no legitimate cause or excuse to justify its request for briefing on an
`
`expedited basis. The pendency of the appeal from this Court’s order denying FRS’s motion for
`
`leave to intervene provides no basis to shorten EPPs time to respond to the motion. Indeed, it is an
`
`additional reason to deny this request as this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the underlying motion
`
`because the issues raised it in are related to, or encompassed by, FRS’s appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
`
`The Sixth Circuit denied FRS’s motion to hold the appeal in abeyance on February 9, 2020. The
`
`briefing schedule on that appeal was set by order of the Sixth Circuit on February 9, 2020.
`
`EPPs respectfully request that this Court deny FRS’s request for an expedited briefing and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`hearing schedule on its motion.
`
`
`
`
`February 18, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ William Reiss
`William V. Reiss
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 980-7400
`Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
`WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com
`
`
`/s/ Adam J. Zapala
`Adam J. Zapala
`Elizabeth T. Castillo
`COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
`San Francisco Airport Office Center
`840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`Telephone: (650) 697-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
`azpala@cpmlegal.com
`ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2115, PageID.38430 Filed 02/18/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jenna G. Farleigh
`Marc M. Seltzer
`Steven G. Sklaver
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
`Telephone: (310) 789-3100
`Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
`mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
`ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Terrell W. Oxford
`Chanler A. Langham
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: (214) 754-1900
`Facsimile: (214)754-1933
`toxford@susmangodfrey.com
`clangham@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Floyd G. Short
`Jenna Farleigh
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
`1201 3rd Ave., Suite 3800
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 373-7381
`Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
`fshort@susmangodfrey.com
`jfarleigh@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Proposed
`End-Payor Plaintiff Classes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
