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)

Download PDF
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?