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)

Download PDF
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?