Taleff et al v. Southwest Airlines Co. et al

Filing 39

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 38 Stipulation filed by Wayne Taleff. Signed by Judge James Ware on 8/31/11. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2011)

R NIA

S
UNIT
ED

VED
APPRO
re

A

H

LI

RT

ER

FO

mes Wa
Judge Ja

NO

1 Joseph M. Alioto (SBN 42680)
Theresa D. Moore (SBN 99978)
2 Jamie L. Miller (SBN 271452)
ALIOTO LAW FIRM
3 225 Bush Street, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5 Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
6 Email: [e-mail]

RT
U
O

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
WAYNE TALEFF, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
15 GUADALUPE HOLDINGS CORP.,
AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 3:11-cv-02179 JW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION AND SETTING
REMAINING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

3:11-cv-02179 JW

1

Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate as follows:

2

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for Injunctive Relief Against

3 Violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act in this Court;
4

WHEREAS, on May 9, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit from

5 this Court’s March 4, 2011, denial of the Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining
6 Order;
7

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief Against

8 Violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act (“First Amended Complaint”) in this Court on
9 May 20, 2011;
10

WHEREAS, on May 26, 2011, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a Stipulation and [Proposed]

11 Order Regarding Stay (“May 26th Stipulation”), which sought a stay of this Court’s proceedings
12 until the Ninth Circuit resolved Plaintiffs’ appeal and issued its mandate, and also requested that
13 the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise plead to the First Amended Complaint be 30
14 days after issuance of the Ninth Circuit mandate;
15

WHEREAS, on May 27, 2011, this Court entered an order granting the parties’ May 26th

16 Stipulation;
17

WHEREAS, on June 2, 2011, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal;

18

WHEREAS, on June 24, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate;

19

WHEREAS, on July 22, 2011, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a Stipulation and [Proposed]

20 Order to Extend Time to File Responsive Pleading and Setting Briefing Schedule (“July 22nd
21 Stipulation”), which sought an extension of time for Defendants to answer or otherwise plead to the
22 First Amended Complaint, and sought a mutually agreeable briefing schedule;
23

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2011, this Court entered an order granting the parties’ July 22nd

24 Stipulation;
25

WHEREAS, on August 8, 2011, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First

26 Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) and Request for Judicial Notice in support thereof;
27

WHEREAS, a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is set for October 31, 2011, at

28 9:00 a.m.;
-1STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

3:11-cv-02179 JW

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ counsel have had certain scheduling conflicts since this Court

2 entered the order granting the parties’ July 22nd Stipulation, making it burdensome for Plaintiffs to
3 prepare and file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by August 29, 2011;
4

WHEREAS, the parties agree that Plaintiffs shall have until September 12, 2011, to file a

5 response/opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice in support
6 thereof;
7

WHEREAS, the parties further agree that Defendants shall have until September 28, 2011,

8 to file a reply to Plaintiffs’ response/opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Request for
9 Judicial Notice in support thereof;
10
11

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1.

Plaintiffs shall have until September 12, 2011, to file a response/opposition

12 to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in support thereof.
13

2.

Defendants shall have until September 28, 2011, to file a reply to Plaintiffs’

14 responses to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice.
15

3.

This stipulation is without prejudice to any party seeking additional

16 modifications of the schedule in this action via stipulation or court order.
17
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
18
19 DATED: August 29, 2011

ALIOTO LAW FIRM

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

By: /s/ Joseph M. Alioto
Joseph M. Alioto
Jamie L. Miller
ALIOTO LAW FIRM
225 Bush Street, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]

28
-2STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

3:11-cv-02179 JW

1

I, Joseph M. Alioto, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND
2 SETTING REMAINING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I
hereby attest that each of the signatories below has concurred in this filing.
3
DATED: August 29, 2011
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER, & FLOM
4
LLP
5
By: /s/ Steven C. Sunshine____________________
6
Allen J. Ruby
Thomas V. Christopher
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM LLP
525 University Avenue Suite 1100
Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10
11

Steven C. Sunshine
Gary A. MacDonald
Sara L. Bensley
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM LLP
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

12
13
14
15
16

ORDER
17
18

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

August 31, 2011
Dated: ____________________.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION

3:11-cv-02179 JW