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.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Dominique N. Thomas, Bar No. 231464
[e-mail]
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