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)
[e-mail]
LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel.: [phone]

4
5
6
7
8

SEAN D. MCHENRY (SBN 284175)
[e-mail]
MCHENRY LAW FIRM
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TIMOTHY PRUITT

9
10
11
12

LYNNE C. HERMLE (STATE BAR NO. 99779)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
650-614-7401

13
14
15
16
17

JULIE A. TOTTEN (STATE BAR NO. 166470)
[e-mail]
LEO MONIZ (STATE BAR NO. 285571)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Telephone: [phone]
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