E. & J. Gallo Winery et al v. Instituut Voor Landbouw - En Visserijonderzoek, et al.

Filing 97

Stipulation and Order modifying schedule for responses to complaint and proposed amended complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/25/2018. (Rosales, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

FRESNO DIVISION

11
12
13
14

E. & J. GALLO WINERY, doing business
as SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
CONCENTRATES; G3 ENTERPRISES,
INC. doing business as DELAWARE G3
ENTERPRISES, INC.; and MCD
TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

STIPULATION AND ORDER
MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR
RESPONSES TO COMPLAINT AND
PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

15
16

Case No. 17-cv-00808-DAD-EPG

(ECF No. 96)

v.

19

INSTITUUT VOOR LANDBOUW-EN
VISSERIJONDERZOEK; EIGEN
VERMOGEN VH INSTITUUT VOOR
LANDBOUW-EN
VISSERIJONDERZOEK; FLANDERS’
FOOD; and DOES 1-10,

20

Defendants.

17
18

21
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 144 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6, Plaintiffs E & J
22
Gallo Winery, doing business as San Joaquin Valley Concentrates, G3 Enterprises, Inc., and
23

MCD Technologies Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Instituut Voor Landbouw-En

24
Visserijonderzoek and Eigen Vermogen VH Instituut Voor Landbouw-En Visserijonderzoek
25

(together, “Defendants”) hereby stipulate through their respective counsel of record as follows:

26
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the above-captioned action on June 15,
27
2017 (Dkt. 1);
28
30
31
32

1
STIPULATION AND ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSES TO
COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. 17-cv-00808

1
2

WHEREAS, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on October 17, 2017 (Dkt. 27);

3

WHEREAS, on June 1, 2018, the Court entered an order granting-in-part and denying-in-

4

part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which directed Plaintiffs “to file and serve any amended

5

complaint no later than thirty days from the issuance of [the] order” (Dkt. 86);
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs’

6
7

deadline to file an amended complaint, if any, is July 2, 2018;1
WHEREAS, by stipulation of the parties (Dkt. 94), Defendants’ current deadline to

8
9

prepare and file their responsive pleading to the Complaint is June 29, 2018;

10

WHEREAS, on June 20, 2018, Plaintiffs notified counsel for Defendants that Plaintiffs

11

intend to file an amended complaint on or before July 2, 2018, pursuant to the Court’s order on

12

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;

13

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that it is unnecessary for Defendants to prepare and

14

file a responsive pleading to the Complaint on June 29, 2018, in view of Plaintiffs’ intent to file a

15

new amended complaint three days later, which will require a separate response from Defendants

16

within fourteen days of service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3);

17
18

WHEREAS, in light of the Fourth of July holiday, Defendants seek additional time to
review and respond to any amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs; and

19
20

WHEREAS, the further extensions of time stipulated herein will not alter any event or
deadline already fixed by Court Order;

21

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED that:

22

1.

The deadline for Defendants to file and serve a responsive pleading to the existing

23

Complaint shall be extended to July 16, 2018, which is two weeks after Plaintiffs’ deadline to file

24

an amended complaint; and

25
26
27
28
30
31
32

1

Thirty days from the issuance of the Court’s order is July 1, 2018, which is a Sunday, so
Plaintiffs’ deadline is extended to the next court day, July 2.
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSES TO
COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. 17-cv-00808

1

2.

If Plaintiffs file an amended complaint on or prior to July 2, 2018, Defendants’

2

deadline to file and serve a responsive pleading to the amended complaint shall be extended to

3

July 23, 2018, which is three weeks after Plaintiffs’ deadline to file an amended complaint.

4
5

IT IS SO STIPULATED:
Respectfully Submitted,

6
7

Dated: June 22, 2018

8

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

By:

/s/ Edward A. Bayley
JEFFREY R. CHANIN
MATTHEW M. WERDEGAR
EDWARD A. BAYLEY

9
10

Attorneys for Defendants
INSTITUUT VOOR LANDBOUW-EN
VISSERIJONDERZOEK and EIGEN
VERMOGEN VH INSTITUUT VOOR
LANDBOUW-EN VISSERIJONDERZOEK

11
12
13
14

Dated: June 22, 2018

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP

15
By:

17

/s/ Stephanie Roberts (as authorized on 6/22/2018)
SANJEET K. DUTTA
JAMIE L. LUCIA
STEPHANIE ROBERTS

18

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

19
20

ORDER

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:

June 25, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
30
31
32

3
STIPULATION AND ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSES TO
COMPLAINT AND PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. 17-cv-00808