Nguyen v. BMW of North America, LLC et al

Filing 54

ORDER Re: Briefing schedule (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2011)

1

6

William A. Kershaw (State Bar No. 057486)
Stuart C. Talley (State Bar No. 180374)
KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, California 95864
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2
3
4
5

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

12
13
14

TIM NGUYEN, as an individual and
CHRIS CLYNE, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly
situated,

15
Plaintiffs,

16
17
18
19

v.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; and
DOES 1-100,

Case No. CV 10-2257 SI
STIPULATION TO CHANGE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE RELATING TO BMW NA’S
MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT;
DECLARATION OF STUART C. TALLEY
IN SUPPORT THEREOF
[N.D. Cal. L.R. 6-2]

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED REQUEST TO CHANGE TIME; TALLEY DECL. ISO—CASE NO. CV 10-2257 SI

1

By and through their respective counsel of record, plaintiffs Tim Nguyen and Chris Clyne,

2

as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Defendant BMW of North

3

America (“BMW NA”) stipulate and agree as follows:

4

1.

In the parties’ prior stipulated order signed by the Court on August 24, 2011 [Dkt.

5

No. 52], the parties consented to a briefing schedule on Defendant BMW NA’s Motion to Strike

6

[Dkt. No. 41] and Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 42] plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint as

7

follows:

8

August 30, 2011: Plaintiffs’ opposition briefs due;

9

September 20, 2011: BMW NA’s reply briefs due.

10
11

2.

The parties have met and conferred and propose the following changes to the above

briefing schedule:

12

September 16, 2011: Plaintiffs’ opposition briefs due.

13

3.

Procedural History: Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), the parties have previously

14

stipulated to two extensions of time for BMW NA to respond to plaintiff’s Second Amended

15

Complaint. The first extension was up to and including August 17, 2010, and the second was up

16

to and including September 28, 2010, whereupon BMW NA filed its dispositive motions to the

17

Second Amended Complaint. The parties have also previously stipulated to extensions of time

18

for the briefing schedule on the dispositive motions to the Second Amended Complaint, to

19

continue the Initial Case Management Conference, and to extend the ADR deadlines, and the

20

Court has approved such stipulations. See Docket No. 14 (Aug. 5, 2010 Order); Docket No. 26

21

(Oct. 13, 2010 Order); Docket Entry of December 3, 2010 (Order); Docket No. 29 (December 22,

22

2010 Order); Docket No. 30 (January 3, 2011 Order). On January 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their

23

Third Amended Complaint, which rendered moot BMW NA’s then pending dispositive motions

24

to the Second Amended Complaint. The parties have also previously stipulated to extensions of

25

time for the briefing schedule on the dispositive motions to the Third Amended Complaint, to

26

continue the Initial Case Management Conference, and to extend the ADR deadlines, and the

27

Court has approved such stipulations. See Docket No. 35 (Jan. 28, 2011 Order); Docket No. 37

28
1
STIPULATED REQUEST TO CHANGE TIME; TALLEY DECL. ISO—CASE NO. CV 10-2257 SI

1

(March 14, 2011); Docket No. 48 (July 7, 2011); Docket No. 50 (July 20, 2011); Docket No. 52

2

(August 24, 2011).

3

4.

Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local R. 6-1(b) and 6-2, the parties seek approval of this

4

stipulated request for an order changing time, as the agreements set forth in paragraph 2 affect

5

dates involving papers required to be filed with the Court and a hearing date currently set on the

6

Court’s calendar.

7
8

5.

Other than as discussed in paragraph 3, there have been no prior time modifications in

this case.

9
Dated: August 30, 2011.

Respectfully submitted,

10
CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP

11
12

By

/s/ Eric J. Knapp
ERIC J. KNAPP
Attorneys for Defendant
BMW of North America, LLC

13
14
15
16

Dated: August 30, 2011.

KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF

LLP

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

By

/s/ Stuart C. Talley
STUART C. TALLEY
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Tim Nguyen
General Order 45, § X Certification
The filing attorney hereby certifies that concurrence in the filing of the document has been
obtained from each of the other signatories, in full accordance with N.D. Cal Gen. Ord. 45, §
X(B).

24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATED REQUEST TO CHANGE TIME; TALLEY DECL. ISO—CASE NO. CV 10-2257 SI

1

DECLARATION OF STUART C. TALLEY IN SUPPORT OF
STIPULATED REQUESTS FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME

2
3
4

I, Stuart C. Talley, declare and state as follows:
1.

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before this Court, and am partner with

5

KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF LLP, counsel for plaintiffs in the above-entitled action.

6

The matters referred to in this Declaration are based upon my best personal knowledge and belief,

7

and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would competently testify as to each of them.

8
9
10
11

2.

On August 24, 2011, the Court issued an Order [Dkt. No. 52] approving the parties’

stipulated request to amend the briefing schedule on Defendant BMW NA’s Motion to Strike
[Dkt. No. 41] and Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 42] plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint.
3.

Since the Court issued its August 24, 2011 Order, the parties have engaged in

12

substantive discussions regarding the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, which discussions

13

the parties believe may result in a change to the contours of the case and the issues presented by

14

it. Accordingly, the parties mutually recognize that the prior deadlines should be altered to give

15

the parties an opportunity to properly address those issues.

16

4.

To accommodate those discussions, the parties propose that plaintiffs’ opposition

17

briefs to Defendant BMW NA’s Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 41] and Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No.

18

42] plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint be filed by September 16, 2011.

19

5.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), the parties have previously stipulated to two

20

extensions of time for BMW NA to respond to plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The first

21

extension was up to and including August 17, 2010, and the second was up to and including

22

September 28, 2010, whereupon BMW NA filed its dispositive motions to the Second Amended

23

Complaint. The parties have also previously stipulated to extensions of time for the briefing

24

schedule on the dispositive motions to the Second Amended Complaint, to continue the Initial

25

Case Management Conference, and to extend the ADR deadlines, and the Court has approved

26

such stipulations. See Docket No. 14 (Aug. 5, 2010 Order); Docket No. 26 (Oct. 13, 2010 Order);

27

Docket Entry of December 3, 2010 (Order); Docket No. 29 (December 22, 2010 Order); Docket

28

No. 30 (January 3, 2011 Order). On January 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended

5
DECLARATION OF STUART TALLEY IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION—CASE NO. CV 10-2257 SI

1

Complaint, which rendered moot BMW NA’s then pending dispositive motions to the Second

2

Amended Complaint. The parties have also previously stipulated to extensions of time for the

3

briefing schedule on the dispositive motions to the Third Amended Complaint, to continue the

4

Initial Case Management Conference, and to extend the ADR deadlines, and the Court has

5

approved such stipulations. See Docket No. 35 (Jan. 28, 2011 Order); Docket No. 37 (March 14,

6

2011); Docket No. 48 (July 7, 2011); Docket No. 50 (July 20, 2011); Docket No. 52 (August 24,

7

2011).

8
9

6.

Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local R. 6-1(b) and 6-2, the parties seek approval of this

stipulated request for an order changing time, as the agreements set forth in paragraph 4 affect

10

dates involving papers required to be filed with the Court and a hearing date currently set on the

11

Court’s calendar.

12
13
14
15
16

7.

Other than as discussed in paragraph 5, there have been no prior time modifications in

this case.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed this 30th day of August 2011 at Sacramento, California.

17
/s/ Stuart C. Talley
STUART C. TALLEY

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

DECLARATION OF STUART TALLEY IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION—CASE NO. CV 10-2257 SI

1
2
3
4

ORDER
For good cause shown, the Court hereby enters the Stipulation set forth above as the Order
of the Court. The schedule in this case is hereby modified as follows:
a.

Plaintiff will have until September 16, 2011 to file oppositions to Defendant BMW

5

NA’s Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 41] and Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 42] plaintiffs’

6

Third Amended Complaint;

7

b.

Any reply briefs relating to these motions shall be filed by September 20, 2011; and

8

c.

The motion hearing remains on 9/30/11 at 9:00 a.m.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED
8/30
Dated: ___________________, 2011
By:
HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8

ORDER ON STIPULATION—CASE NO. CV 10-2257 SI