McNeary-Calloway v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
38
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' to 23 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Responses due by 10/17/2011. Replies due by 11/2/2011. Hearing shall remain on calendar for 12/9/11 at 9:30 AM. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 10/11/11. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011)
1 KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
2 Ramzi Abadou (SBN 222567)
580 California Street, Suite 1750
3 San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
4 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
Peter Obstler (SBN 171623)
Zachary J. Alinder (SBN 209009)
Elizabeth Benson (SBN 268851)
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 393-2000
Facsimile: (415) 393-2286
5 - and 6 Edward W. Ciolko (pro hac vice)
Terence S. Ziegler (pro hac vice)
7 Donna Siegel Moffa (pro hac vice)
Michelle A. Coccagna (pro hac vice)
8 280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
9 Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
10
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
11 [Additional counsel listed on signature page]
12
13
Counsel for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
PATRICIA MCNEARY-CALLOWAY,
15 individually and on behalf of all others similarly
16 situated,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and CHASE )
)
BANK USA, N.A.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 11-cv-03058-JCS
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
Hearing Date: December 9, 2011
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: Courtroom G
Judge: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
[Filed concurrently with Proposed Order
and Declaration of Edward W. Ciolko]
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-03058-JCS
Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Plt. To Respond to Motion to Dismiss
1
Plaintiff Patricia McNeary-Calloway (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank,
2 N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A. (collectively, “Defendants”) (together, the “Parties”) respectfully
3 submit the following Joint Stipulation to Extend the Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendants’
4 Motion to Dismiss.
5
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendants
6 on June 20, 2011 (ECF No. 1);
7
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
8 (the “Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 23);
9
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s Order Regarding Joint Stipulation to Extend the Time
10 for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dated October 3, 2011, Plaintiff’s
11 response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is due to be filed on or before October 10, 2011 (ECF
12 No. 36);
13
WHEREAS, Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s response is due to be filed on or before
14 November 2, 2011 (ECF No. 23);
15
WHEREAS, a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled for
16 December 9, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom G before the Honorable Joseph C. Spero (ECF No. 34);
17
WHEREAS, as set forth in the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to Extend the Time for Plaintiff to
18 Respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, dated September 28, 2011 (ECF No. 35), Plaintiff is
19 preparing to file an amended complaint in this action to add additional parties and/or additional
20 claims;1
21
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted counsel for Defendants to discuss the need for
22 additional time to finalize the proposed amended complaint in light of continued discussions with the
23 proposed plaintiff and amongst co-counsel, as well as the upcoming holidays;
24
WHEREAS, after meeting and conferring, the Parties agreed to an extension of seven (7)
25
26
1
Rather than filing a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, the Parties are presently
negotiating a stipulation and proposed order that would allow Plaintiff to file the amended complaint
27 without the need for motion practice.
28
1
Case No. 11-cv-03058-JCS
Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Plt. to Respond to Motion to Dismiss
1 days for the filing of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, to on or before
2 October 17, 2011, to allow Plaintiff additional time to file her amended complaint prior to October
3 17, 2011;
4
WHEREAS, after conferring in good faith, the Parties have agreed, subject to court approval,
5 that Plaintiff shall have until October 17, 2011 to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the
6 date by which Defendants are to file a reply to Plaintiff’s response shall remain scheduled for
7 November 2, 2011, and the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss shall remain calendared for
8 December 9, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.2 This stipulation has been reached to provide Plaintiff with
9 additional time needed to finalize the amended complaint, in the interest of avoiding motion practice
10 related to that amendment and to avoid the need for additional filings in the interim which may be
11 affected or mooted by the proposed amendment.
12
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:
13
Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on or before October 17, 2011
14
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
15
16
Dated: October 7, 2011
/s/ Edward W. Ciolko
Edward W. Ciolko (pro hac vice)
eciolko@ktmc.com
Terence S. Ziegler (pro hac vice)
tziegler@ktmc.com
Donna Siegel Moffa (pro hac vice)
dmoffa@ktmc.com
Michelle A. Coccagna (pro hac vice)
mcoccagna@ktmc.com
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Respectfully submitted,
2
In the event that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss remains on the docket, Plaintiff has agreed
not to oppose any request by Defendants for an extension of up to two (2) weeks to file a reply to
26 Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and will join in a stipulation to that effect,
27 even if such an extension would require moving the scheduled hearing.
28
2
Case No. 11-cv-03058-JCS
Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Plt. to Respond to Motion to Dismiss
1
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
2
- and Ramzi Abadou (SBN 222567)
rabadou@ktmc.com
580 California Street, Suite 1750
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
3
4
5
6
Jeffery J. Angelovich (pro hac vice)
Michael B. Angelovich (pro hac vice)
Brad E. Seidel (pro hac vice)
NIX PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
205 Linda Drive
Daingerfield, TX 75638
Tel: (903) 645-7333
Fax: (903) 645-4415
7
8
9
10
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
12 Dated: October 7, 2011
/s/ Peter Obstler (with consent)
Peter Obstler (SBN 171623)
peter.obstler@bingham.com
Zachary J. Alinder (SBN 209009)
zachary.alinder@bingham.com
Elizabeth Benson (SBN 268851)
elly.benson@bingham.com
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 393-2000
Facsimile: (415) 393-2286
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Attorneys for Defendants
20
O
IT IS S
24
28
ER
Spero
seph C.
LI
Judge Jo
A
H
27
RT
26
NO
25
ED
ORDER
R NIA
Dated: October 11, 2011
FO
23
UNIT
ED
22
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
RT
U
O
S
21
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
3
C
Case No. 11-cv-03058-JCS
Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Plt. to Respond to Motion to Dismiss
1
2
FILER’S ATTESTATION
Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence
3 in the filing of the document has been obtained from all of the signatories.
4
5 DATED: October 7, 2011
6
7
8
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
By: /s/ Edward W. Ciolko
Edward W. Ciolko
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-03058-JCS
Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Plt. to Respond to Motion to Dismiss
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 7, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
3 the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail
4 addresses of all counsel of record.
5
6
7
8
/s/ Edward W. Ciolko
Edward W. Ciolko
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-03058-JCS
Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Plt. to Respond to Motion to Dismiss
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?