Dalton et al v. Freeman et al

Filing 22

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/28/2022 EXTENDING defendants deadline to respond to plaintiffs' complaint to 8/19/2022. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dominique N. Thomas, Bar No. 231464 dnthomas@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard Suite 600 Walnut Creek, California 94597 Telephone: 925.932.2468 Fax No.: 925.946.9809 Attorneys for Defendants TAK COMMUNICATIONS CA, INC. AND LARRY L. WRAY 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 14 CONNOR DALTON and ANTHONY SAMANO, as participants in and on behalf of the O.C. Communications Employee Partnership Program Plan and Trust, and on behalf of a class of all others who are similarly situated, 15 Plaintiffs, 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 Case No. 2:22-CV-00847-JAM-DMC STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Complaint Filed: May 18, 2022 v. FORREST C. FREEMAN (aka CRAIG FREEMAN); ALERUS FINANCIAL, N.A.; CARLA FREEMAN; LARRY L. WRAY; REGINAL D. WRIGHT; RICK WYLIE; DON YEE; JOHN DOES 1-50; O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and TAK COMMUNICATIONS CA, INC, Defendants. 21 22 23 Plaintiffs CONNOR DALTON AND ANTHONY SAMANO (“Plaintiffs”) and 24 Defendant TAK COMMUNICATIONS CA, INC. (“Defendant” or “TAK”) 25 (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby jointly stipulate as follows: 26 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant, among other 27 defendants, on May 18, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District 28 of California; LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.932.2468 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT CASE NO. 2:22-CV-00847-JAM-DMC 1 WHEREAS, Defendant TAK Communications CA, Inc. was deemed served with 2 the Complaint on June 8, 2022, and its response to the Complaint was originally due on 3 June 29, 2022; 4 WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to a thirty-day extension for Defendants to 5 respond to the Complaint through and including July 29, 2022, and submitted a 6 Stipulation and Proposed Order to that effect which the Court granted and entered on 7 July 6 (see Doc. 5; Doc. 6)1; 8 WHEREAS during the extended period of time granted for Defendant to respond 9 to the Complaint, the Parties have conferred with each other regarding whether TAK is 10 an appropriate defendant to be included in this matter, and have discussed voluntarily 11 exchanging information with each other bearing on this issue and which could lead to 12 an agreement that TAK is not a proper defendant and, potentially, dismissal of TAK 13 from this matter; 14 WHEREAS, the Parties would like a brief extension of time to continue this 15 ongoing dialogue and exchange of information to facilitate those discussions (including 16 time necessary to discuss a confidentiality arrangement for data to be exchanged), 17 particularly given that counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendant had pre-planned 18 vacations during the early part of July; and 19 WHEREAS, the Parties confirm for the Court that this Stipulation and Proposed 20 Order are not submitted for purposes of delay, but expressly for the purposes of 21 continuing ongoing dialogue that may result in TAK being dismissed as a defendant in 22 this matter or, at minimum, streamlining the allegations and claims regarding TAK in a 23 way that will facilitate the litigation moving forward. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties have agreed to extend and jointly request that 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.932.2468 1 The original Stipulation and Proposed Order included Defendant Larry Wray, because at that time there was a question regarding whether Mr. Wray had been served with the Complaint. Subsequently it has been determined that Mr. Wray has not yet been served with the Complaint, accordingly, the Parties are not requesting herein a further extension of time for Mr. Wray to respond to the Complaint. Instead, counsel for Defendant has agreed to work with counsel for Plaintiffs to execute a waiver of service for Mr. Wray and his deadline to respond to the Complaint will be established through that process. STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 2 CASE NO 2:22-CV-00847-JAM-DMC 1 the Court extend the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint by 21 2 days from July 29, 2022 to August 19, 2022. 3 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 5 6 Dated: July 27, 2022 7 SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 8 /s/ James Bloom (as authorized on July __, 2022) James Bloom 9 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CONNOR DALTON AND ANTHONY SAMANO 11 12 Dated: July 27, 2022 LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 13 14 /s/ Dominique N. Thomas Dominique N. Thomas 15 Attorneys for Defendants TAK COMMUNICATIONS CA, INC. AND LARRY L. WRAY 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.932.2468 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 3 CASE NO 2:22-CV-00847-JAM-DMC ORDER 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 5 Dated: July 28, 2022 6 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.932.2468 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 4 CASE NO 2:22-CV-00847-JAM-DMC

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?