Johnson et al v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 262

ORDER re 259 Stipulation, filed by Jennifer Riese, James Purvis, Jeffrey Johnson, Shaun Simmons. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 9/30/2011. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011)

Case3:09-cv-03596-CRB Document259

THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
1 W. Mark Lanier (Pro Hac Vice)
2 [e-mail]
Christopher D. Banys SBN: 230038
3 [e-mail]
Daniel M. Shafer SBN: 244839
4 [e-mail]
2200 Geng Road, Suite 200
5
Palo Alto, CA 94303
6 Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
7
FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR (Pro Hac Vice)
8
[e-mail]
9 MEGHAN MARTINEZ (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
10 RICHARD P. BARKLEY (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
11 NATHAN J. AXVIG (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
12 14426 East Evans Avenue
Aurora, CO 80014
Tel: [phone]
13
Fax: [phone]
14
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15

Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 3

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Robert J. Smith, State Bar No. 162784
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
[e-mail]
Melinda S. Riechert, SBN: 65504
[e-mail]
Anne M. Brafford, SBN: 237574
[e-mail]
2 Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2122
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
LITTLER MENDELSON
A Professional Corporation
Richard W. Black, State Bar No. 467982
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
[e-mail]
Barbara I. Antonucci, State Bar No. 209039
[e-mail]
650 California Street, 20th
San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant

16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19
20

JEFFREY JOHNSON, JENNIFER
RIESE, SHAUN SIMMONS, and
JAMES PURVIS, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated,

21
22
23
24
25

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
and DOES 1-25 Inclusive,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:09-cv-003596-CRB
STIPULATION REGARDING ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME FOR FILING (1) PLAINTIFFS'
RESPONSE INCLUDING OBJECTIONS TO
BILL OF COSTS, AND (2) DEFENDANT"S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer

26
27
28

STIPULATION RE ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
Case No. 3:09-cv-003596-CRB, Johnson, et al., v. Hewlett Packard Co.

Case3:09-cv-03596-CRB Document259

1

Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 3

1. On August 22, 2011, Defendant filed an Ex Parte Application to Extend Time for Filing

2 of Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Bill of Costs, seeking a fourteen-day enlargement
3 of time to file its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Bill of Costs. Plaintiffs did not oppose this
4 Application and it was granted by the Court.
5

2. On September 1, 2011, Defendant filed its Bill of Costs but moved for a second

6 enlargement of time, until September 30, 2011, to file its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. This second
7 request, for an enlargement of time for Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, was also not
8 opposed by Plaintiffs, and it was granted on September 9, 2011, allowing Defendant to and
9 including September 30, 2011, to file any motion for attorneys' fees.
10

3. On September 9, 2011, Plaintiffs requested an enlargement of time to respond,

11 including file objections to Defendant's Bill of Costs, which was granted. Plaintiffs’ response to
12 Defendant's Bill of Costs is currently due on September 30, 2011.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

4. On September 27, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Defer Consideration of Motions
for Attorneys Fees and Costs Until After Appeal is Completed.
5. Further, the Mediation Program of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has set an
Assessment Conference for October 27, 2011 to discuss whether the case is appropriate for the
participation in the Mediation Program. If there is movement towards or settlement of the dispute
at that conference, also within the enlargement of time requested here, then considerable time and
resources would be conserved.
6. Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is currently due September 30, 2011.
7. WHEREFORE, both sides stipulate to an extension so that both Plaintiffs’ response
including objections to Defendant’s Bill of Costs and Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees are
now due October 31, 2011.

24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION RE ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
Case No. 3:09-cv-003596-CRB, Johnson, et al., v. Hewlett Packard Co.

Case3:09-cv-03596-CRB Document259

Filed09/30/11 Page3 of 3

1 Dated: September 30, 2011.
2

FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

3
4

/s/ Franklin D. Azar
Franklin D. Azar

5

Counsel for Plaintiffs

6
7

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

8

S

NO

14

_______________________________
E STATES DISTRICTC
UNITEDR
JUDGE
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
H

16

DATED September 30 , 2011

RT

15

yer
s R. Bre
e Charle
Judg

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

R NIA

13 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

ERED

O ORD
IT IS S

STIPULATION RE ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
Case No. 3:09-cv-003596-CRB, Johnson, et al., v. Hewlett Packard Co.

LI

12

FO

UNIT
ED

11

A

10

RT
U
O

/s/ Melinda S. Riechert
Melinda S. RiechertSTR
I
ICT
ES D
C
AT
T
Counsel for Defendant

9