Snyder et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 148

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION CONTINUING DATES RE DISPOSITIVE MOTION. Plaintiffs' opposition shall be filed no later than June 30, 2009. Defendant's reply shall be filed no later than August 4, 2009. The hearing on the motion is continued to August 28, 2009. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 13, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Jeffrey L. Fazio (146043) ([e-mail]) Dina E. Micheletti (184141) ([e-mail]) FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP 2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315 San Ramon, CA 94583 T: 925-543-2555 F: 925-369-0344 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robert Smith and Rebecca Klein, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Warren E. Platt (154086) ([e-mail]) Robert J. Gibson (144974) ([e-mail]) Snell & Wilmer LLP 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689 T: 714-427-7000 F: 714-427-7799 Attorneys for Defendant Ford Motor Company Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SMITH AND REBECCA KLEIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and DOES 1100, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No. C 06 0497 MMC JL STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING DATES RE DISPOSITIVE MOTION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On February 18, 2009, the Court set the following schedule for the pending dispositive motions filed by Defendant: May 11, 2009 Plaintiffs conclude discovery pertaining to issues raised by Defendant's motions for summary judgment (including depositions of Defendant's declarants). May 26, 2009 Plaintiffs file briefs in opposition to motions for summary judgment and (possibly) cross-motion for summary judgment. June 9, 2009 June 23, 2009 Defendant completes depositions of Plaintiffs' declarants. Defendant files reply brief(s) in support of motions for summary judgment. July 17, 2009 Hearing of motion for summary judgment.1

On March 3, 2009, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in In re Tobacco II Cases, no. S147345 and submitted the matter. The Supreme Court's website describes that case as including the following two issues (although these do not limit the Court's review): (1) In order to bring a class action under Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), as amended by Proposition 64 (Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004)), must every member of the proposed class have suffered "injury in fact," or is it sufficient that the class representative comply with that requirement? (2) In a class action based on a manufacturer's alleged misrepresentation of a product, must every member of the class have actually relied on the manufacturer's representations? Pursuant to Article VI § 19 of the California Constitution, the Supreme Court's decision in this case is due in June 2009 ­after the current deadline for Plaintiffs' briefs. While the parties do not agree as to what effect (or even relevance), if any, the decision in In re Tobacco II Cases will have on the matters pending before the Court, the parties agree that they may wish to address the case in their briefs. All parties also agree that such discussion should occur in the

In the event that Plaintiffs file a cross-motion for summary judgment, the parties' shall, no later than five days thereafter, submit a stipulated revised briefing schedule in which the proposed hearing date on both motions shall be no earlier than three weeks after plaintiffs' reply is filed. -1STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING DATES RE DISPOSITIVE MOTION
(NO. 3:06-CV-0497-MMC)

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ordinary course of briefing, and not through supplemental briefs. Accordingly, all parties agree and respectfully ask the Court to continue all pending dates related to these motions by five to six weeks (in light of July 4th holiday) to allow analysis and discussion of the upcoming In re Tobacco II Cases decision. The new schedule would be as follows: June 30, 2009 Plaintiffs file briefs in opposition to motions for summary judgment and (possibly) cross-motion for summary judgment. July 21, 2009 August 4, 2009 Defendant completes depositions of Plaintiffs' declarants. Defendant files reply brief(s) in support of motions for summary judgment. August 28, 2009 Hearing of motion for summary judgment.2

SO STIPULATED. DATED: May 12, 2009 FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP

by

/s/ Jeffrey L. Fazio Jeffrey L. Fazio

Michael von Loewenfeldt Michael Ng KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP 100 Spear Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105­1528 T: 415-371-8500 F: 415-371-0500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robert Smith and Rebecca Klein, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

In the event that Plaintiffs file a cross-motion for summary judgment, the parties' shall, no later than five days thereafter, submit a stipulated revised briefing schedule in which the proposed hearing date on both motions shall be no earlier than three weeks after plaintiffs' reply is filed. -2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING DATES RE DISPOSITIVE MOTION
(NO. 3:06-CV-0497-MMC)

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DETROIT.3653994.1

DATED: May 12, 2009

SNELL & WILMER LLP

by

/s/ Robert J. Gibson Robert J. Gibson

Attorneys for Defendant Ford Motor Company SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13,

, 2009 Hon. Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge

-1STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING DATES RE DISPOSITIVE MOTION
(NO. 3:06-CV-0497-MMC)