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)

Download PDF
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?