Oppido v. General Motors Corporation

Filing 22

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 19 Stipulation filed by General Motors Corporation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on March 13, 2009. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2009)

Download PDF
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 Chris Almand (SBN 222755) calmand@kirkland.com Craig C. Hoffman (SBN 234232) choffman@kirkland.com KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 777 South Fiqueroa Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 Robert B. Ellis, P.C. (Pro Hac Vice Pending) rellis@kirkland.com Jamenda A. McCoy (Pro Hac Vice Pending) jmccoy@kirkland.com KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 861-2000 Facsimile: (312) 861-2200 OF COUNSEL: Lawrence S. Buonomo, Esq. Office of General Counsel GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 400 Renaissance Center Post Office Box 400 Detroit, Michigan 48265-4000 Attorneys for Defendant General Motors Corporation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL OPPIDO, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. CV 09 0426 EDL [PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Hon. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte [Proposed] Order re Stipulation To Extend Time CV 09 0426 EDL 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 IT IS ORDERED. DATED: March 13, 2009 iii. ii. [PROPOSED] ORDER The Court, having reviewed the stipulation of the parties filed contemporaneously herewith, and good cause appearing, hereby ORDERS as follows: i. General Motors' answer or other pleading in response to plaintiffs' Complaint shall be due thirty days after the JPML rules on plaintiff's objection to the conditional transfer order; and the current dates for the Rule 26(f) report and Initial Case Management Conference are stricken pending a ruling by the JPML. the parties shall file a joint status statement no later than September 8, 2009. UNIT ED S ISTRIC ES D TC AT T ER N F D IS T IC T O R [Proposed] Order re Stipulation To Extend Time -2- A C LI FO __________________________________ Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte . Laporte D li abeth Judge E United States Districtz Court Magistrate Judge R NIA NO IT IS S O ORD ERED RT U O RT H Case No. 2:09cv0426 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the foregoing document via the CM/ECF system and Electronic Mail on March 12, 2009. Michael F. Ram mfr@lrolaw.com Karl Olson ko@lrolaw.com LEVY, RAM & OLSON LLP 639 Front Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-1913 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 Steven L. Nicholas sln@cunninghambounds.com R. Edwin Lamberth rel@cbcbb.com CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC 1601 Dauphin Street Mobile, AL 36604 Telephone: (251) 471-6191 Facsimile: (251) 479-1031 Mark S. Baumkel baumkelm@aol.com Law Offices, Mark S. Baumkel & Associates 30200 Telegraph Road, Suite 200 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Telephone: (248) 642-0444 Facsimile: (248) 642-6661 John W. Rasmussen rasmussen_jw@yahoo.com JOHN W. RASMUSSEN, P.L.C. 48 North Macdonald Street Mesa, AZ 85201 Telephone: (480) 964-1421 Facsimile: (480) 834-5114 rasmussen_jw@yahoo.com Gary E. Mason gmason@masonlawdc.com Donna F. Solen Dsolen@masonlawdc.com [Proposed] Order re Stipulation To Extend Time -3- Case No. 2:09cv0426 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 1225 19th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 Attorney for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class s/ Chris Almand [Proposed] Order re Stipulation To Extend Time -4- Case No. 2:09cv0426

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?