Gormley v. Nike, Inc.
Filing
138
ORDER, Motions terminated: 137 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Rescheduling Certain Dates and Deadlines Pending Settlement Conference and Further Settlement Discussions filed by Nike, Inc.. Bench Trial set for 9/15/2014 08:30 AM be fore Hon. Susan Illston. Motion Hearing set for 8/1/2014 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. Pretrial Conference set for 9/2/2014 03:30 PM before Hon. Susan Illston. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 2/19/14. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2014)
1
2
3
COOLEY LLP
MICHELLE C. DOOLIN (179445) (doolinmc@cooley.com)
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 550-6000
Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
4
5
6
7
COOLEY LLP
BEATRIZ MEJIA (190948) (mejiab@cooley.com)
MATTHEW M. BROWN (264817) (brownmm@cooley.com)
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
8
9
Attorneys for Defendants
NIKE, INC; NIKE USA, INC. AND
NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC.
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DUSTIN GORMLEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation,
Defendant.
Consolidated Case No. 11-cv-00893-SI
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RESCHEDULING CERTAIN DATES
AND DEADLINES PENDING SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE AND FURTHER
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
ERIKA MCCARTNEY, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
NIKE, Inc., an Oregon corporation; and
DOES 2 through 20,
Defendants.
KRISTEN L. HARTMAN, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
NIKE USA, INC., an Oregon Corporation;
NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC., an Oregon
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,
Defendants.
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1.
CASE NO. 11-CV-00893-SI
JOINT STIP AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CERTAIN DATES AND DEADLINES
1
Pursuant to L.R. 6-2, counsel for defendant Nike Retail Services, Inc. (“Nike”) and
2
counsel for plaintiffs Dustin Gormley, Erika McCartney, and Kristen L. Hartman (“Plaintiffs”)
3
(collectively, the “Parties”) stipulate as follows:
4
WHEREAS, the Parties attended a Case Management Conference on January 24, 2014
5
during which the Court ordered the Parties, including their clients, to attend a mandatory
6
settlement conference during the last week of February 2014;
7
8
WHEREAS, the Parties, including their clients, are now scheduled to attend a settlement
conference with Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore on February 26, 2014;
9
WHEREAS, the Parties anticipate undertaking serious settlement discussions during that
10
settlement conference, and that those settlement discussions may continue for several days and
11
possibly weeks following that settlement conference;
12
WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred and agree that those settlement
13
discussions would be better facilitated and more likely to result in an eventual settlement if the
14
dates and deadlines associated with the Parties’ experts, dispositive motions, and trial are
15
extended in a manner that accommodates the scheduling limitations of both the Court and the
16
Parties;
17
18
19
20
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and respectfully request that the Court order as
follows:
The current dates and deadlines shall be changed to the modified dates and deadlines, as
provided in the chart below:
21
22
Current Date/Deadline
Modified Date/Deadline
Last Day for Parties to Designate
Opening Experts
March 14, 2014
May 9, 2014
25
Last Day for Parties to Designate
Rebuttal Experts
April 11, 2014
June 6, 2014
26
Expert Discovery Cutoff
May 9, 2014
June 20, 2014
27
Last Day for Parties to File
Dispositive Motions
March 7, 2014
June 27, 2014
23
24
Event
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
2.
CASE NO. 11-CV-00893-SI
JOINT STIP AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CERTAIN DATES AND DEADLINES
1
2
3
4
5
6
Last Day for Parties to File
Oppositions to Dispositive Motions
March 21, 2014
July 11, 2014
Last Day for Parties to File Replies
in Support of Dispositive Motions
March 28, 2014
July 18, 2014
Hearing on Dispositive Motions
April 10, 2014
August 1, 2014
Pre-Trial Conference
May 13, 2014
September 2, 2014
Bench Trial Begins
May 27, 2014
September 15, 2014
7
8
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
9
10
Dated: February 18, 2014
11
COOLEY LLP
MICHELLE C. DOOLIN
BEATRIZ MEJIA
MATTHEW M. BROWN
12
/s/ Michelle C. Doolin
Michelle C. Doolin
13
14
Attorneys for Defendants
NIKE, INC., NIKE USA, INC., AND NIKE RETAIL
SERVICES, INC.
15
16
17
Dated: February 18, 2014
18
19
HOFFMAN LIBENSON SAUNDERS & BARBA
TIM HOFFMAN
CHAD A. SAUNDERS
/s/ Chad A. Saunders
Chad A. Saunders
20
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DUSTIN GORMLEY
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Dated: February 18, 2014
PACIFIC JUSTICE CENTER
ROBERT B. HANCOCK
MELVIN B. PEARLSTON
/s/ Robert B. Hancock
Robert B. Hancock
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ERIKA MCCARTNEY
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
3.
CASE NO. 11-CV-00893-SI
JOINT STIP AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CERTAIN DATES AND DEADLINES
1
Dated: February 18, 2014
FINEMAN & ASSOCIATES
NEIL B. FINEMAN
2
/s/ Neil B. Fineman
Neil B. Fineman
3
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ERIKA MCCARTNEY
5
6
Dated: February 18, 2014
STONEBARGER LAW, APC
GENE J. STONEBARGER
RICHARD D. LAMBERT
7
8
/s/ Gene J. Stonebarger
Gene J. Stonebarger
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KRISTEN L. HARTMAN
10
11
12
FILER’S ATTESTATION
13
14
15
Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned attests that all signatories have
concurred in the filing of this document.
16
17
Dated: February 18, 2014
COOLEY LLP
18
/s/ Matthew M. Brown
Matthew M. Brown
19
20
Attorneys for Defendants
NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
2/19/14
Dated: __________________________
25
__________________________________________
The Honorable Susan Illston
United States District Judge
26
27
28
1352950 /SF
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
4.
CASE NO. 11-CV-00893-SI
JOINT STIP AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING CERTAIN DATES AND DEADLINES
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?