Lee v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company

Filing 157

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR FINAL STAY OF DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/14/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DAN MARMALEFSKY (CA SBN 95477) dmarmalefsky@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017-3543 Telephone: 213.892.5200 Facsimile: 213.892.5454 TIFFANY CHEUNG (CA SBN 211497) TCheung@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Attorneys for Defendant STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 JESSICA LEE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, 16 Plaintiff, 17 Case No. CV 11-0043-RS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FINAL STAY OF DEADLINES v. Judge: 18 19 20 21 STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Vermont corporation, and TRIFECTA MARKETING GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Hon. Richard Seeborg Action Filed: Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FURTHER STAY DEADLINES CV 11-0043-RS sf-3380165 Jan. 4, 2011 1 Plaintiff Jessica Lee, Defendant Stonebridge Life Insurance Company (“Stonebridge”), 2 and Defendant Trifecta Marketing Group, LLC (“Trifecta”) (collectively the “Parties”), by and 3 through their respective counsel of record, hereby enter into the following stipulation: 4 5 6 WHEREAS, the Parties have reached a class action settlement in principle that would resolve all of the claims of Plaintiff and the Class against both Stonebridge and Trifecta; WHEREAS, the Court has approved stipulations between the Parties that stayed all 7 activity in this Action, including all hearings and discovery and motion deadlines, for a total 8 period of approximately 11 weeks to allow the Parties to work on a class action settlement 9 agreement and submit it to the Court for preliminary approval (Docket No. 149); 10 WHEREAS, on February 4, 2014, the Parties subsequently sought a further brief 9-day 11 extension, through February 13, to finalize the agreement, which was granted by the Court 12 (Docket Nos. 154 & 155); 13 WHEREAS, the Parties have finalized their Settlement Agreement and Exhibits. 14 However, while some signatures have been received, due to severe weather on the East Coast 15 preventing necessary signatories from traveling to work, there has been a delay in obtaining all 16 required signatures; 17 WHEREAS, the Parties request one final stay of seven (7) days, until February 20, 2014. 18 The Parties believe a further stay of all case deadlines is warranted to avoid unnecessary litigation 19 expenses and to conserve the resources of both the Parties and the Court; 20 THEREFORE, subject to the approval of the Court, the Parties agree and stipulate that 21 this Action, including all hearings and discovery and motion deadlines, shall remain stayed 22 through February 20, 2014, by which time Plaintiff shall move for preliminary approval of the 23 class action settlement agreement. 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FURTHER STAY DEADLINES CV 11-0043-RS sf-3380165 1 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 2 3 Dated: February 13, 2014 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 4 5 By: 6 Attorneys for Defendant STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 7 8 /s/ Tiffany Cheung TIFFANY CHEUNG Dated: February 13, 2014 EDELSON LLC 9 10 By: 11 12 /s/ Ryan D. Andrews RYAN D. ANDREWS Attorneys for Plaintiff JESSICA LEE and the class 13 14 15 Dated: February 13, 2014 LAW OFFFICES OF ALEXANDER SKLAVOS 16 17 By: 18 /s/ Alexander E. Sklavos ALEXANDER E. SKLAVOS Attorney for Defendant TRIFECTA MARKETING GROUP, LLC 19 20 21 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 22 23 24 25 Dated: February 14, 2014 Hon. Richard Seeborg United States District Judge 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FURTHER STAY DEADLINES CV 11-0043-RS sf-3380165 2

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?