McDaniel et al v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC et al

Filing 13

STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until 14 calendar days after Defendants' Motion to Transfer is Denied or Transfer to the Eastern District is Effectuated, whichever occurs first. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 12/7/10. (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2010)

Download PDF
McDaniel et al v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC et al Doc. 13 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 MALCOLM A. HEINICKE (State Bar No. 194174) Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 TERRY E. SANCHEZ (State Bar No. 101318) SHOSHANA E. BANNETT (State Bar. No. 241977) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DOUGLAS K. McDANIEL and BRYAN CLARK, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, vs. WELLS FARGO INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National Association, WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC, formerly known as Wachovia Securities, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. CV 10 4916 SC STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT 12436876.1 STIPULATION CASE NO. CV 10 491 Dockets.Justia.com 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 WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil L-R 6-1(a), counsel for Defendants Wells Fargo Investments, LLC; Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. have requested an extension of the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, and counsel for Plaintiffs has agreed to such an extension; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on July 12, 2010 in state court; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served Defendants with the complaint and summons on September 29, 2010, and the action was subsequently removed to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was November 5, 2010; WHEREAS, the parties previously agreed to extend Defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by thirty (30) days, and the Defendants' current deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is December 6, 2010; WHEREAS, Defendants have filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404, and that motion has been noticed for a hearing on January 21, 2011; WHEREAS, the parties agree that it would be inefficient to brief and litigate Rule 12 motions and other matters before the transfer issue is decided; WHEREAS, the parties agree to extend Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until fourteen (14) calendar days after (a) the motion to transfer is denied; or (b) transfer to the Eastern District is effectuated, whichever occurs first; WHEREAS, the extension set forth will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court order, and Defendants take the position that Civil Local Rule 6-1(a) does not require a Court order for such an extension, but the Clerk of Court has requested the submission of a stipulation with a proposed order contained in it; WHEREAS, through this stipulation, Plaintiffs and Defendants do not concede any procedural or substantive rights -- this stipulation affects only the deadline for responding to the complaint; 12436876.1 STIPULATION CASE NO. CV 10 491 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 1 NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants through their counsel of record stipulate to the following and respectfully request an order to this effect: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(a) that the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint shall be and is hereby extended to fourteen calendar days after (a) the motion to transfer is denied; or (b) transfer to the Eastern District is effectuated, whichever occurs first. DATED: December 6, 2010 Law Offices Of William P. Torngren WILLIAM P. TORNGREN By /s/ William P. Torngren WILLIAM P. TORNGREN Attorneys for Plaintiffs DATED: December 6, 2010 Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP By: /s/ Malcolm A. Heinicke MALCOLM A. HEINICKE Attorneys for Defendants1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, and the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended until fourteen calendar days after (a) Defendants' motion to transfer is denied; or (b) transfer to the Eastern District is effectuated, whichever occurs first. S S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O 12/7/10 ER I, Malcolm A. Heinicke, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being C N F D IS T IC used to file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND T O DEADLINE R THE FOR DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B., I hereby attest that William P. Torngren concurred in this filing. 12436876.1 -2- STIPULATION CASE NO. CV 10 4916 A LI FO Judge S amuel C onti R NIA _____________T I__O __DE__D __________ _ _ OR _ RE _ I SS THE HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI NO UNIT ED RT H

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?