Pruitt v. Genentech, Inc.
Filing
177
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 05/16/19 ORDERING that enforcement of the judgment and any proceedings to enforce judgment, by execution or otherwise, are STAYED pending the issuance of the mandate of the USCA of any appeal in this case. Nothing in this Order is intended to diminish, reduce, or lessen any rights or remedies to which any party may be entitled. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
JEAN K. HYAMS (STATE BAR NO. 144425)
jean@levyvinick.com
LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel.: (510) 318-770
4
5
6
7
8
SEAN D. MCHENRY (SBN 284175)
sean@mchenryemployment.com
MCHENRY LAW FIRM
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-494-8422
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TIMOTHY PRUITT
9
10
11
12
LYNNE C. HERMLE (STATE BAR NO. 99779)
lchermle@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
Telephone: 650-614-7400
Facsimile:
650-614-7401
13
14
15
16
17
JULIE A. TOTTEN (STATE BAR NO. 166470)
jatotten@orrick.com
LEO MONIZ (STATE BAR NO. 285571)
lmoniz@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Telephone: 916-447-9200
Facsimile:
916-329-4900
18
19
Attorneys for Defendant
GENENTECH, INC.
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
21
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
22
TIMOTHY PRUITT,
23
24
25
26
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:17-CV-00822-JAM-AC
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL
GENENTECH, INC.; AND DOES 1
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER
STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-00822-JAM-AC
4132-9645-0332.2
1
2
STIPULATION
Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rules 143, Plaintiff Timothy Pruitt and
3
Defendant Genentech, Inc., by their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
4
WHEREAS, the Court entered judgment on April 10, 2019 (Dkt. 164);
5
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on May 9, 2019 (Dkt. 173);
6
WHEREAS, given Plaintiff’s appeal and potential changes to the judgment based thereon,
7
and to avoid unnecessary motion practice, the parties believe it is appropriate to stay enforcement
8
of the judgment pending Plaintiff’s appeal;
9
10
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties stipulate that the Court may enter an order as follows:
1.
Enforcement of the judgment and any proceedings to enforce judgment, by
11
execution or otherwise, are stayed pending the issuance of the mandate of the U.S. Court of
12
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of any appeal in this case.
13
14
15
2.
Nothing in this Order is intended to diminish, reduce, or lessen any rights or
remedies to which any party may be entitled.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
16
17
Dated: May 16, 2019
18
MCHENRY LAW FIRM
By: /s/ Sean D. McHenry (as authorized on May 16, 2019)
SEAN D. MCHENRY
19
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TIMOTHY PRUITT
20
21
22
Dated: May 16, 2019
23
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
By:
/s/ Julie A. Totten
JULIE A. TOTTEN
24
Attorneys for Defendant
GENENTECH, INC.
25
26
27
28
-14132-9645-0332.2
JOINT STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER
STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-00822-JAM-AC
1
2
3
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated: May 16, 2019
/s/ John A. Mendez_____________________
Hon. John A. Mendez
6
United States District Court Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-24132-9645-0332.2
JOINT STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER
STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-00822-JAM-AC
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?