R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company v. Pappas

Filing 57

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/9/2022 EXTENDING dates and deadlines as follows: John Pappas III's deadline to file an opposition to the Motion for Contempt due by 5/18/2022. Donnelley's Reply due by 6/6/2022. The 47 Motion for Contempt Hearing CONTINUED to 7/29/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Coll, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mark A. Romeo, Bar No. 173007 mromeo@littler.com Derek S. Hecht, Bar No. 273039 dhecht@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: 949.705.3000 Fax No.: 949.724.1201 Attorneys for Plaintiff R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation DYLAN W. WISEMAN (SBN: 173669) BERIT ELAM (SBN: 307389) 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: 916.945.5170 Email: dwiseman@buchalter.com belam@buchalter.com Attorneys for Defendants and Counter-Claimants JOHN PAPPAS III and MERILIZ, INC., dba DOME PRINTING 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 18 19 20 R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, 23 vs. JOHN PAPPAS III, an individual, MERILIZ, INC., dba DOME PRINTING, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. JOHN PAPPAS III, an individual, and MERILIZ, INC., dba DOME PRINTING, 24 25 26 27 BUCHALTER SACRAMENTO Trial Date: January 30, 2023 Complaint Filed: April 26, 2021 Counter-Claimants, vs. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Counter-Defendants. 28 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT JOHN PAPPAS III TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT R.R. DONNELLY & SONS COMPANY’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT; ORDER Plaintiff, 21 22 CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-AC BN 70125074v1 1 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PAPPAS TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-AC 1 Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (“Donnelley”) and 2 Defendant and Counter-Claimant John Pappas III (“Pappas”) hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. 3 Donnelley filed its Complaint in this action on April 26, 2021. Subsequently 4 Donnelley amended its Complaint to add Defendant Meriliz Inc., dba Dome Printing (“Dome”) as 5 a defendant on October 27, 2021. 2. 6 7 Pappas and Dome filed a counter-claim against Donnelley on November 3, 2021 and amended their claims on November 11, 2021. 8 3. This case is in the midst of discovery, and is set for trial on January 30, 2023. 9 4. On April 18, 2023, this case was reassigned from District Judge John A. Mendez to 10 Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. 5. 11 On April 6, 2022, Donnelley filed and served a Motion for Contempt or, in The 12 Alternative, To Issue an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not Be Held in Contempt 13 (“Motion”) against Pappas in this action. This Motion is set for hearing on June 28, 2022. 6. 14 Just over a month prior to the Motion’s filing, the Local Rules for the Eastern 15 District of California were amended on March 1, 2022. Some of the amendments were to Rule 16 230, which sets the civil motion calendaring procedure. Rule 230(c) was updated to set the deadline 17 for opposition to any motion to be due 14 days from the date of the motion’s filing. 7. 18 Prior to March 1, 2022, the Local Rule 230(c) set the deadline for opposition to any 19 motion to run 14 days preceding the hearing date on the motion. At the time of the Motion’s filing, 20 Counsel for Defendants were under the impression that the prior version of Local Rule 230(c) 21 governed and would have made the Opposition to the Motion due June 14, 2022. However, the 22 deadline was in fact governed by the new version of Rule 230(c) and therefore was due April 20, 23 2022. 24 25 26 8. Counsel for Defendants became aware of the rule change on April 26, 2022, after the deadline for the Opposition under new Rule 230(c) passed. 9. On April 27, 2022 Defendants requested an extension to oppose Donnelley’s 27 Motion. In light of the recent rule change, Donnelley agreed to a courtesy extension on the deadline 28 for Pappas to file an opposition to the Motion. Donnelley agreed to make the new deadline for BUCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SACRAMENTO BN 70125074v1 2 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PAPPAS TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-AC 1 Pappas’ opposition May 18, 2022. 10. 3 4 The Parties agree that Donnelley’s deadline to file a reply should be set for June 6, 11. 2 Under this modified briefing schedule, there would be no prejudice to Donnelley as 2022. 5 it would have nearly three weeks to file any reply. Defendants agreed to extend the reply deadline 6 beyond the standard 10 days under Local Rule 230(d) to accommodate the paternity leave of 7 Donnelley’s counsel. Nevertheless, all briefing would still be submitted to the Court three weeks 8 before the hearing date. 9 12. Accordingly, it is hereby agreed and stipulated by the Parties that Pappas’ deadline 10 to file an opposition to the Motion is extended to May 18, 2022, and that Donnelley’s deadline to 11 file a reply is extended to June 6, 2022. 12 13. Additionally, on April 29, 2022, the Court continued the hearing date for the Motion 13 to July 8, 2022. Counsel for Defendants is in trial in Los Angeles on that date (up through July 14, 14 2022) and therefore the Parties have stipulated and request that the Court extend the hearing date 15 to the next available date, after July 14, 2022. 16 STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY: 17 Dated: May 3, 2022 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 18 19 /s/Derek S. Hecht (as authorized on 5/3/22) Mark A. Romeo Derek S. Hecht Attorneys for Plaintiff R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY 20 21 22 Dated: May 3, 2022 BUCHALTER, APC 23 24 /s/Dylan W. Wiseman Dylan W. Wiseman Berit L. Elam Attorneys for Defendants and CounterClaimants JOHN PAPAS III and Meriliz, Inc., dba Dome Printing 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SACRAMENTO BN 70125074v1 3 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PAPPAS TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-AC ORDER 1 2 3 The Court having considered the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing, HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1) Defendant and Counter-Claimant John Pappas III’s deadline to file an opposition to 5 Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company’s (“Donnelley”) 6 Motion for Contempt or, in The Alternative, To Issue an Order to Show Cause Why 7 Defendant Should Not Be Held in Contempt (“Motion”) is extended to May 18, 2022, 8 and Donnelley’s deadline to file a reply is extended to June 6, 2022. 9 2) The hearing date on Donnelley’s Motion is continued from July 8, 2022 to July 29, 10 2022 at 10:00 a.m.. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: May 9, 2022. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SACRAMENTO BN 70125074v1 4 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PAPPAS TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-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?