Field v. American Mortgage Express Corporation et al

Filing 107

STIPULATION AND ORDER Regarding Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Class Representatives. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/19/2011. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011)

Download PDF
1 Lorraine P. Ocheltree (SBN 151791) Allegra A. Jones (SBN 236518) 2 DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower 3 One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 4 Telephone: 415.957.3000 Facsimile: 415.957.3001 5 E-Mail: lpocheltree@duanemorris.com aajones@duanemorris.com 6 Eric P. Berezin 7 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) DUANE MORRIS LLP 8 Atlantic Center Plaza 1180 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 700 9 Atlanta, GA 30309-3448 Telephone: 404.253.6900 10 Facsimile: 404.253.6901 E-mail: epberezin@duanemorris.com 11 Attorneys for Defendant 12 GEVITY HR, INC. 13 Harry G. Lewis (SBN 157705) Gordon W. Renneisen (SBN 129794) Julie A. Marquis (SBN 178466) CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP 595 Market Street, Suite 2360 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.974.1900 Facsimile: 415.974.6433 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARSHALL FIELD, CHERIE JOHNSON, MARIA IGNACIO and all other similarly situated persons IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 MARSHALL FIELD, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, 17 Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 AMERICAN MORTGAGE EXPRESS CORP., a 20 Pennsylvania Corporation and GEVITY HR, INC., a Florida Corporation, 21 Defendants. 22 Case No.: 3:09-cv-05972-EMC JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES Date: November 21, 2011 Time: 3:30 p.m. Courtroom: 5, 17th Floor 23 24 Purported plaintiffs and class representatives Cherie Johnson and Maria Ignacio (collectively, 25 “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, and defendant Gevity HR, Inc. (“Defendant” 26 or “Gevity”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby enter into the following Joint 27 Stipulation: 28 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion and Motion To Substitute Class DM2\3052866.1 CASE NO. 3:09-CV-05972-EMC JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 Representative (“Motion”) on November 4, 2011; 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), the deadline for Gevity to file an opposition 3 to Plaintiffs’ Motion is October 18, 2011; 4 WHEREAS, Plaintiff has agreed to extend the deadline for Gevity to file an opposition to 5 Plaintiffs’ Motion to, and including, October 31, 2011 in light of the circumstances described in the 6 Declaration of Lorraine P. Ocheltree concurrently filed herewith; 7 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, pursuant to Civil 8 L.R. 6-2, by Plaintiffs and Gevity that Gevity will have up to, and including, October 31, 2011, to 9 file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(c), Plaintiffs’ deadline to 10 file and serve a reply to Gevity’s opposition to the Motion shall be November 7, 2011. 11 12 Dated: October 18, 2011 DUANE MORRIS LLP 13 By: /s/ Allegra A. Jones Lorraine P. Ocheltree Allegra A. Jones Attorneys for Defendant GEVITY HR, INC. 14 15 16 17 18 Dated: October 18, 2011 CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP 19 By: /s/ Harry G. Lewis Harry G. Lewis Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARSHALL FIELD, CHERIE JOHNSON, MARIA IGNACIO and all other similarly situated persons 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DM2\3052866.1 2 CASE NO. 3:09-CV-05972-EMC JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ORDER 1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 S _________________________________ Honorable Judge Edward M. Chen Judge of the United States District Court 7 10 A H ER LI dwar Judge E RT 9 en d M. Ch NO 8 R NIA 6 UNIT ED 19 5 Dated: October ____, 2011 RT U O 4 S DISTRICT TE C TA FO 2 N F D IS T IC T O R C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DM2\3052866.1 3 CASE NO. 3:09-CV-05972-EMC JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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?