Salgado v. T-Mobile USA, Inc

Filing 34

STIPULATION and ORDER 33 Extending Page Limitation for Class Certification Opposition and Reply Briefs, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/28/2019. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

KEITH A. JACOBY, Bar No. 150233
[e-mail]
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Telephone:
310.553.0308
Facsimile:
310.553.5583
GREGORY G. ISKANDER, Bar No. 200215
[e-mail]
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone:
925.932.2468
Facsimile:
925.946.9809

9
10
11
12
13

SOPHIA BEHNIA, Bar No. 289318
[e-mail]
PERRY K. MISKA, JR, Bar No. 299129
[e-mail]
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone:
415.433.1940
Facsimile:
415.399.8490

14
15

Attorneys for Defendant
T-MOBILE USA, INC.

16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19
20

EMMANUEL SALGADO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,

21

Plaintiff,

22

v.

23

T-MOBILE USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,

24

____
Case No. 1:17-cv-00339-DAD-JLT
JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING
PAGE LIMITATION FOR DEFENDANT’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
(Doc. 33)

Defendant.
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.932.2468

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-00339-DAD-JLT

JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING PAGE
LIMIT FOR DEFT’S OPPOSITION AND PL’S
REPLY BRIEFS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Subject to the approval of this Court, Plaintiff EMMANUEL SALGADO and Defendant

2

T-MOBILE USA, INC., through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate pursuant to Local Rule

3

143 as follows:

4

1.

Parties have agreed to a stipulation that Plaintiff and Defendant shall have a short ten

5

page extension on Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, and Plaintiff’s

6

Reply Brief in Support of his Motion for Class Certification. Accordingly, Defendant may be

7

permitted to file an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification in excess of the existing

8

page limit, as provided by the Court’s August 28, 2017 Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 23), up to 40 pages

9

in length, exclusive of the caption page, table of contents, table of authorities and supporting

10

documents. Plaintiff likewise may be permitted to file a Reply Brief in Support of his Motion for

11

Class Certification in excess of the existing page limit, as provided by the Court’s August 28, 2017

12

Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 23), up to 25 pages in length, exclusive of the caption page, table of

13

contents, table of authorizes and supporting documents.

14

2.

Good cause exists for granting this stipulation. While the parties appreciate the

15

importance of brevity, the parties will be contesting and analyzing the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure, Rule 23(a) factors of commonality, typicality, adequacy, all of the Rule 23(b) factors

17

(including predominance and superiority), Plaintiff’s proposed trial management plan, and numerous

18

factual and credibility issues of the case. Thus, the additional ten pages are necessary to allow the

19

parties to respond fully and adequately address all of these issues and arguments.

20

3.

The parties have agreed to a mutual ten page extension of the Memorandum of Points

21

and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, and the Memorandum of

22

Points and Authorities In Support of Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class

23

Certification.

24

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.932.2468

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-00339-DAD-JLT

2.

JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING PAGE
LIMIT FOR DEFT’S OPPOSITION AND PL’S
REPLY BRIEFS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Dated: March 25, 2019

LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES

2
By:

/s/ Kevin T. Barnes
Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
Gregg Lander, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Emmanuel Salgado

3
4
5
6

Dated: March 25, 2019

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

7
8

By: /s/ Perry Miska
KEITH A. JACOBY
GREGORY G. ISKANDER
SOPHIA BEHNIA
PERRY K. MISKA
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
T-MOBILE USA, INC.

9
10
11
12

[PROPOSED] ORDER

13
14

The Court will grant the stipulation to allow the parties to exceed the page limitations

15

for the opposition to the motion for class certification (up to 40 pages) and the reply (up to 25

16

pages). However, counsel SHALL make best efforts to edit the briefs, so they are concise, with no

17

repetition or needless block quotes. They are reminded that often, more is not better; it is just more.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 28, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard
Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.932.2468

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-00339-DAD-JLT

3.

JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING PAGE
LIMIT FOR DEFT’S OPPOSITION AND PL’S
REPLY BRIEFS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER