Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA KIM CARTER MARTINEZ, on behalf of Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-05725-MJP herself and all others similarly situated, STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER 12 Plaintiff, TO STAY CASE PENDING ANTI-SLAPP APPEAL vs. NOTING DATE: May 5, 2022 ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware corporation Defendant.

18 This stipulated motion is made by and between Defendant ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. and Plaintiff Kim Carter Martinez through their respective counsel of record.

20 1. Whereas, Plaintiff filed this action on September 30, 2021, alleging ZoomInfo violated her statutory and common-law right of publicity under California law. ECF No. 1.

22 2. Whereas, on December 8, 2021, ZoomInfo moved to strike each cause of action in Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute on the grounds that her suit challenges speech concerning a matter of public concern. ECF No. 19.

25 3. Whereas, on April 11, 2022, the Court denied ZoomInfo’s anti-SLAPP motion.

26 ECF No. 39.

27 4. Whereas, on April 14, 2022, ZoomInfo appealed the Court’s order denying its anti- SLAPP motion. ECF No. 40.

2 Plaintiff that it intended to move for a stay pending appeal on the grounds that (1) the appeal has divested the Court of jurisdiction and (2) California’s automatic stay provision must be applied where, as here, the Court is sitting in diversity. See, e.g., Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (filing notice of appeal “divest[s] [the Court] of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed”); Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 2011 WL 613571, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (“[u]nder California law, an appeal of a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays further trial court proceedings on causes of action related to the motion”).

10 6. Whereas, the parties met and conferred regarding ZoomInfo’s anticipated motion to stay and Plaintiff agreed to stipulate to ZoomInfo’s requested stay and to file a joint status report within seven calendar days of the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of that appeal.

13 WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request an Order staying this case in its entirety pending resolution of ZoomInfo’s anti-SLAPP appeal within seven calendar days of the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of that appeal.

16 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

2 TURKE & STRAUSS LLP QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP /s/ Samuel J. Strauss /s/ Alicia Cobb Samuel J. Strauss, WSBA #46971 Alicia Cobb, WSBA #48685 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, Washington 98103-8869 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone (608) 237-1775 Phone (206) 905-7000 Fax (608) 509-4423 Fax (206) 905-7100 8 [email protected] Raina Borrelli (pro hac vice) Williamson St., Suite 201 Shon Morgan (Pro Hac Vice) Madison, Wisconsin 53703 John W. Baumann (Pro Hac Vice) Phone (608) 237-1775 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor [email protected] Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone (213) 443-3000 LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN Fax (213) 443-3100 Benjamin Osborn (pro hac vice) [email protected] Bergen St. [email protected] Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (347) 645-0464 Cristina A. Henriquez (Pro Hac Vice) [email protected] 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX Phone (650) 801-5000 LITIGATION GROUP Fax (650) 801-5100 Michael F. Ram (pro hac vice) [email protected] Marie N. Appel (Pro Hac Vice) Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 Attorneys for Defendant ZoomInfo San Francisco, CA 94102 Technologies Inc. Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Telephone: (415) 358-6293 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

DATED this 10th day of May, 2022.

3 A 5 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge