Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Filing 662

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 661 Regarding Briefing on Rule 23 Motions filed by Shirley "Rae" Ellis, Leah Horstman, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 661 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Briefing on Rule 23 Motions, 543 MOTION for an Order Eliminating Class Claims. Responses due by 6/8/2012. Ps' reply in support of class certification by 7/13/12. Replies due by 6/29/2012.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/4/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

THE IMPACT FUND
Brad Seligman (SBN: 83838)
Jocelyn D. Larkin (SBN: 110817)
125 University Avenue
Berkeley, Ca 94710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Kenwood C. Youmans (SBN: 68258)
David D. Kadue (SBN: 113578)
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, California 90067-2901
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE,
RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
Bill Lann Lee (SBN: 108452)
Julia Campins (SBN: 238023)
476 9th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. (Admitted Pro Hac
Vice)
131 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Thomas J. Wybenga (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
c/o Costco Wholesale Corporation
999 Lake Drive
Issaquah, WA 98027-5367
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

[Additional Counsel Listed on
Signature Page]

12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13
14
15

Attorneys for Defendant Costco Wholesale
Corporation

16
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20
21
22

SHIRLEY "RAE" ELLIS, et al.,

23
24
25
26

Plaintiffs,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. C04 3341 EMC
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING ON
RULE 23 MOTIONS

27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE RULE 23 MOTIONS
Case No.: C04 3341 EMC

1

The parties, through their counsel, stipulate as follows:

2
3
1. The Court held a case management conference on May 8, 2012 at which time it set a

4
5

briefing schedule for Costco’s Motion for Order Eliminating Class Claims and authorized

6

plaintiffs to file a Cross-Motion for Class Certification to be heard on the same hearing date (July

7

27, 2012).

8

2. The Court’s minute order did not address the page limits for the remaining briefing on the

9
cross-motions nor do the local rules specifically address a situation where the parties are filing

10
11

cross-motions.

12

3. There is substantial overlap in the issues presented in defendant’s motion and plaintiffs’

13

cross-motion and, to avoid duplication, the parties agree that they can most efficiently respond

14

with one consolidated brief for both motions, rather than separate briefs for each motion.

15
4. Because there has been a prior motion for class certification in this case, an appeal of that

16
17

order to the Ninth Circuit, and an intervening Supreme Court decision, the motion and cross-

18

motion require the parties to brief a large evidentiary record and new legal issues. Plaintiffs

19

must both respond to defendant’s motion and make an affirmative showing that they have met

20

the requirements of Rule 23.

21
5. In order to consolidate the briefing for the two motions and ensure adequate space to

22
23

address the issues, the parties propose the following page limits for the remaining briefs.

24

///

25

///

26
27
28
2

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE RULE 23 BRIEFING
Case No.: C04 3341 EMC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Order
Eliminating Class Claims and Cross-Motion
for Class Certification

40 pages

June 8, 2012

Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for
Order Eliminating Class Claims and
Opposition to Motion for
Class Certification

40 pages

June 29, 2012

Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Class
Certification

15 pages

July 13, 2012

8
6. This stipulation and proposed order does not affect the briefing schedule set by the Court.

9
10
11

DATED: June 1, 2012

THE IMPACT FUND

12
By ____/s/ Jocelyn D. Larkin_____
Jocelyn D. Larkin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13
14
15

DATED: June 1, 2012

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

16
17

By ____/s/ Davd D. Kadue_______
David D. Kadue
Attorneys for Defendant
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

18
19
20
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is so ordered.

22

R NIA

ER

H

28

RT

27

NO

26

DERED

O OR
_______________________
IT IS S
Honorable Edward M. Chen
United States District Court
Chen
ard M.
dge Edw
Ju
FO

25

6/4/12

LI

Date:

UNIT
ED

24

S

___

RT
U
O

23

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

A

21

N

F
D IS T IC T O
2 R

C

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE RULE 23 BRIEFING
Case No.: C04 3341 EMC

1
2

Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP
Kelly Dermody (SBN: 171716)
Daniel Hutchinson (SBN: 239458)
Embarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
San Francisco, Ca 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
DAVIS, COWELL & BOWE, LLP
Steve Stemerman (SBN: 067690)
Elizabeth A. Lawrence (SBN: 111781)
595 Market Street, #1400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

13
14
15
16

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
James M. Finberg (SBN: 114850)
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE RULE 23 BRIEFING
Case No.: C04 3341 EMC