Poligrates v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc
Filing
9
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER re 8 Stipulation filed by Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/14/11. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
DAVID F. MCDOWELL (CA SBN 125806)
DMcDowell@mofo.com
PURVI G. PATEL (CA SBN 270702)
PPatel@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: 213.892.5200
Facsimile: 213.892.5454
Attorneys for Defendant
BED BATH & BEYOND INC.
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
BONNIE POLIGRATES, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
Case No. 3:11-cv-01661-EMC
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEFENDANT’S TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
[L.R. 6-1(a)] ; ORDER
15
16
BED, BATH & BEYOND, INC., and Does 1
through 100, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
Hon. Edward M. Chen
Complaint Filed: March 4, 2011
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
la-1119946
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 3:11-cv-01661-EMC
1
STIPULATION
2
Pursuant to Rule 6-1(a) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
3
Northern District of California, Plaintiff Bonnie Poligrates (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Bed Bath
4
& Beyond Inc. (“BBB”), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows:
5
6
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on March 4, 2011, and served
BBB with the Complaint on or about March 8, 2011;
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
WHEREAS, BBB filed a Notice of Removal to remove the action to this Court on April 6,
2011;
WHEREAS, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(c)(2)(C), BBB’s deadline to
respond to the Complaint is April 13, 2011;
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the deadline for BBB to respond to the
Complaint shall be extended by twenty (20) days to and including May 3, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the extension of time for BBB to answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by the Court;
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED that BBB shall have to
and including May 3, 2011, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
17
18
19
Dated: April 13, 2011
DAVID F. MCDOWELL
PURVI G. PATEL
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
20
21
By:
22
/s/ Purvi G. Patel
Purvi G. Patel
Attorneys for Defendant
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
la-1119946
Case No. 3:11-cv-01661-EMC
1
2
Dated: April 13, 2011
DANIEL H. QUALLS
ROBIN G. WORKMAN
AVIVA N. ROLLER
QUALLS & WORKMAN, L.L.P.
3
4
By:
5
6
/s/ Daniel H. Qualls
Daniel H. Qualls
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Bonnie Poligrates, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
la-1119946
Case No. 3:11-cv-01661-EMC
1
2
ECF ATTESTATION
I, Purvi G. Patel, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
3
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT.
4
In accordance with General Order 45 X.B, concurrence in the filing of this document has been
5
obtained from Daniel H. Qualls, counsel for Plaintiff, and I shall maintain records to support this
6
concurrence for subsequent production for the Court if so ordered or for inspection upon request
7
by a party.
8
Dated: April 13, 2011
DAVID F. MCDOWELL
PURVI G. PATEL
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
9
10
11
By:
/s/ Purvi G. Patel
Purvi G. Patel
12
Attorneys for Defendant
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
13
14
ard M.
ER
Chen
LI
dw
Judge E
A
H
21
RT
20
D
RDERE
OO
IT IS S
NO
19
UNIT
ED
18
____________________
Edward M. Chen
U.S. Magistrate Judge
RT
U
O
17
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
R NIA
IT IS SO ORDERED:
S
16
FO
15
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
la-1119946
Case No. 3:11-cv-01661-EMC
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?