Kool v. Target Corporation

Filing 24

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/13/11 ORDERING that the 4/25/11, hearing on defendant Target Corporation's Motion to Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer this action on account of Previously-filed Class Action; or Alt ernatively, to transfer venue; or Alternatively, to Stay Action Pending Outcome of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court 9 is VACATED; the 4/25/11, initial status conference also is VACATED; The action is stayed for all purposes pending final resolution of the parties' settlement; The parties are directed to report on the progress of the settlement approval process as it proceeds before the court in Mesindo Pompa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Target Corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal., No. CV 10-0634 AHM (FFMx), with the understanding that dismissal of this action will be part of settlement once approved. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5

GENE J. STONEBARGER (Cal. State Bar No. 209461)
RICHARD D. LAMBERT (Cal. State Bar No. 251148)
STONEBARGER LAW
A Professional Corporation
75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
Folsom, California 95630
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10

JAMES R. PATTERSON (Cal. State Bar No. 211102)
ALISA A. MARTIN (Cal. State Bar No. 224037)
HARRISON PATTERSON & O’CONNOR LLP
402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

11
Attorneys for Plaintiff Troy Kool and the Proposed Class
12
13
14
15
16
17

JEFFREY D. WOHL (Cal. State Bar No. 96838)
RISHI N. SHARMA (Cal. State Bar No. 239034)
JENNIFER L. ROTH (Cal. State Bar No. 260616)
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
55 Second Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

18
Attorneys for Defendant Target Corporation
19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22

TROY KOOL, individually and on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated,

23
Plaintiffs,

No. 2:10-CV-02950-LKK-EFB
STIPULATION AND ORDER
TO VACATE HEARING DATES

24
vs.
25
26
27

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
Corporation and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants.

28

LEGAL_US_W # 67686488.3

STIPULATION RE: HEARING DATES
U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal., No. 2:10-CV-02950-LKK-EFB

1
2
3
4

STIPULATION
Plaintiff Troy Kool and defendant Target Corporation (“Target”), acting through their respective
counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1.

On November 17, 2010, Target filed its Motion to Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer This Action

5

on Account of Previously-Filed Class Action; or Alternatively, to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1404(a); or Alternatively, to Stay Action Pending Outcome of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior

7

Court (the “Motion to Dismiss”) (Docket No. 9). The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was noticed for

8

December 20, 2010.

9

2.

Plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on December 6, 2010 (Docket

10

No. 15). Target filed its reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss on December 13, 2010 (Docket

11

No. 17).

12
13
14
15
16

3.

On December 8, 2010, the Court sua sponte continued the hearing on Target’s motion to

dismiss to January 18, 2011. (Docket No. 16.)
4.

Pursuant to the Court’s November 2, 2010, order (Docket No. 7), the parties were also

scheduled to appear on January 24, 2011, for the initial status conference.
5.

On January 7, 2011, the parties stipulated to continue the hearing on Target’s motion to

17

dismiss and the pre-trial scheduling conference to April 14, 2011, and April 25, 2011, respectively

18

(Docket No. 19). The parties requested the continuance based on the mediation in this action and in the

19

pending related action, Mesindo Pompa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

20

Plaintiff v. Target Corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal., No.

21

CV 10-0634 AHM (FFMx) (“Pompa”). On January 10, 2011, the Court otherwise granted the parties’

22

stipulation, but continued the hearing on Target’s motion to dismiss to April 11, 2011. (Docket No. 20.)

23
24
25

6.

On April 4, 2011, the Court sua sponte further continued the hearing on Target’s motion

to dismiss to April 25, 2011. (Docket Nos. 21, 22.)
7.

The parties report that they have reached a resolution of this action and the related Pompa

26

action, and anticipate filing their settlement papers with the court in Pompa within the next month. As

27

part of that settlement, this action will be dismissed. To help facilitate the settlement and avoid what

28

may become unnecessary time and expense for the parties and the Court, the parties request that the

LEGAL_US_W # 67686488.3

STIPULATION RE: HEARING DATES
U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal., No. 2:10-CV-02950-LKK-EFB

1

April 25, 2011, hearing on Target’s motion to dismiss and the April 25, 2011, status conference both be

2

vacated.

3

8.

The parties further request that the Court stay this action for all purposes pending the

4

parties’ settlement. The parties will report back to the Court on the progress of the settlement approval

5

process as it proceeds.

6

Dated: April 13, 2011.

7

GENE J. STONEBARGER
RICHARD D. LAMBERT
STONEBARGER LAW
JAMES R. PATTERSON
ALISA A. MARTIN
HARRISON PATTERSON & O’CONNOR LLP

8
9
10

By:/s/Richard D. Lambert (as authorized 4/13/11)
Richard D. Lambert
Attorneys for Plaintiff Troy Kool and
the Proposed Class

11
12
13

Dated: April 13, 2011.

14

JEFFREY D. WOHL
RISHI N. SHARMA
JENNIFER L. ROTH
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

15
By:/s/Rishi N. Sharma

16

Rishi N. Sharma
Attorneys for Defendant Target Corporation

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2LEGAL_US_W # 67686488.3

STIPULATION RE: HEARING DATES
U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal., No. 2:10-CV-02950-LKK-EFB

1

ORDER

2

On the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor,

3

IT IS ORDERED:

4

1.

The April 25, 2011, hearing on defendant Target Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss, Stay,

5

or Transfer This Action on Account of Previously-Filed Class Action; or Alternatively, to Transfer

6

Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); or Alternatively, to Stay Action Pending Outcome of Brinker

7

Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Docket No. 9) is vacated.

8

2.

The April 25, 2011, initial status conference also is vacated.

9

3.

The action is stayed for all purposes pending final resolution of the parties’ settlement.

10

4.

The parties are directed to report back to the Court on the progress of the settlement

11

approval process as it proceeds before the court in Mesindo Pompa, individually and on behalf of all

12

others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Target Corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,

13

U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal., No. CV 10-0634 AHM (FFMx), with the understanding that dismissal of this action

14

will be part of settlement once approved.

15

Dated: April 13, 2011.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3LEGAL_US_W # 67686488.3

STIPULATION RE: HEARING DATES
U.S.D.C., E.D. Cal., No. 2:10-CV-02950-LKK-EFB