Bow et al v. Cebridge Telecom CA, LLC, et al.,

Filing 14

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/23/2021 EXTENDING Plaintiffs' deadline to file their opposition to the #11 Motion to Compel Arbitration to 5/13/2021; Defendants' deadline to file their reply to the Motion to Compel 6/3/2021; and the hearing on the Motion to Compel to 6/10/2021.(Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 6 Kevin Osborne, State Bar No. 261367 Julie Erickson, State Bar No. 293111 Elizabeth Kramer, State Bar No. 293129 Erickson Kramer Osborne LLP 182 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-635-0631 Fax: 415-599-8088 Email: julie@eko.law 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 3 4 5 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 12 13 14 KATHY BOW, ROBERT PAPP, AND SUSAIN WEISINGER, Plaintiffs, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 vs. CEBRIDGE TELECOM CA, LLC (D/B/A SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS); ALTICE USA, INC.; CEQUEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; CEBRIDGE ACQUISITION, L.P.; CEQUEL III COMMUNICATIONS I, LLC; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 2:21-cv-00444-TLN-JDP STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING BRIEFING DEADLINES AND CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION [L.R. 144; FED. R. CIV. P. 6] Assigned to the Hon. Troy Nunley Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING BRIEFING DEADLINES AND CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFS.’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION; CASE NO. 2:21-CV-00444-TLN-JDP 1 2 3 4 5 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF BRIEFING DEADLINES AND CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION Plaintiffs and Defendants in the above-captioned matter, through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation on 6 April 15, 2021 (Dkt. No. 11) (“Motion to Compel”), which is currently scheduled to be heard on 7 May 13, 2021; 8 9 10 11 12 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ response to the Motion to Compel is currently due on Thursday, April 29, 2021, with Defendants’ reply to be filed no later than May 6, 2021; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have indicated that they will seek certain limited arbitrationrelated discovery in order to adequately oppose Defendants’ Motion to Compel; WHEREAS, Defendants believe that Plaintiffs’ request for arbitration-related discovery 13 is premature but are prepared to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding that request and any 14 potential discovery that Defendants would seek from Plaintiffs if necessary; 15 16 17 WHEREAS, the parties are in the process of meeting and conferring as to the propriety and specifics of Plaintiffs’ request for arbitration-related discovery; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have requested and Defendants have agreed to extend Plaintiffs’ 18 deadline to file their opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel by 14 days to allow the parties 19 time to attempt to informally resolve the issue of Plaintiffs’ requested arbitration-related 20 discovery; 21 22 23 24 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to continue Defendants’ deadline to file their reply in support of the Motion to Compel by 28 days and continue the hearing date accordingly; WHEREAS, this stipulation and request for extension is being submitted to the Court as soon as practicable after it became apparent that the extension would be necessary; 25 WHEREAS, good cause exists for the requested extension, as counsel are working 26 diligently to meet and confer to resolve the issue of arbitration-related discovery without the need 27 for judicial intervention; 28 -1- STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING BRIEFING DEADLINES AND CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFS.’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION; CASE NO. 2:21-CV-00444-TLN-JDP 1 2 WHEREAS, no other extension of time has been sought for the opposition and reply briefs regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel; 3 WHEREAS, only one extension has been previously sought in this action in the form of 4 Defendants’ unopposed initial ex parte request for extension of time to respond to the complaint 5 (Dkt. 5), which the court granted, providing an additional 28 days to respond to the complaint 6 (Dkt. 6); 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, pursuant to Local Rule 144(a), as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file their opposition to the Motion to Compel shall be extended 14 days, to and including May 13, 2021; 2. Defendants’ deadline to file their reply to the Motion to Compel shall be extended 28 days, to and including June 3, 2021; 3. The hearing on the Motion to Compel shall be continued to June 10, 2021. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: April 23, 2021 ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP KEVIN OSBORNE JULIE ERICKSON ELIZABETH KRAMER 17 18 19 20 21 By: /s/ Julie Erickson Julie Erickson Attorneys for Plaintiffs MAYER BROWN LLP ARCHIS A. PARASHARAMI 22 23 24 By: /s/ Archis Parasharami Archis A. Parasharami (as authorized on April 23, 2021) 25 Attorneys for Defendants 26 27 28 -2- STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING BRIEFING DEADLINES AND CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFS.’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION; CASE NO. 2:21-CV-00444-TLN-JDP 1 2 ORDER PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES, 3 1. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file their opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration 4 and Stay Litigation (“Motion to Compel”) shall be extended 14 days, to and including 5 May 13, 2021; 6 7 8 9 10 11 2. Defendants’ deadline to file their reply to the Motion to Compel shall be extended 28 days, to and including June 3, 2021; 3. The hearing on the Motion to Compel shall be continued to June 10, 2021. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 23, 2021 12 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING BRIEFING DEADLINES AND CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFS.’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION; CASE NO. 2:21-CV-00444-TLN-JDP

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?