Schroeder et al v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Filing 18

ORDER for extension of time for reply brief re 17 Stipulation filed by Astrid Mendoza, Deborah L. Schroeder, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 17 Stipulation. Replies due by 10/4/2011.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 10/04/2011. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2011)

Case3:11-cv-04412-CRB Document17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Filed09/28/11 Page1 of 3

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
Scott A. Bursor (State Bar No. 276006)
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
Sarah N. Westcot (State Bar No. 264916)
2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1010
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Petitioners

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16

DEBORAH L. SCHROEDER and ASTRID
MENDOZA,
Petitioners,

17
18
19
20

v.
AT&T MOBILITY LLC,

Case No. 3:11-cv-04412-CRB
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION

Respondent.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-04412-CRB

Case3:11-cv-04412-CRB Document17

Filed09/28/11 Page2 of 3

1

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2011, Petitioners Deborah L. Schroeder and Astrid

2

Mendoza commenced this action by filing a Petition to Enforce Arbitration Agreements (Dkt.

3

No. 1) with Respondent AT&T Mobility LLC (“ATTM”);

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2011, the Court related this action to AT&T Mobility LLC
v. Bernardi, No. 3:11-cv-03992-CRB (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. No. 6);
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2011, ATTM filed its Opposition to the Petition to
Compel Arbitration (Dkt. No. 14);
WHEREAS, under the current schedule, Petitioners’ reply brief in support of their
Petition is due today, September 28, 2011, and is scheduled to be heard on October 21, 2011;
WHEREAS, the parties stipulate that the Petitioners’ deadline to file their reply brief in
support of their Petition shall be extended until October 4, 2011;

12

WHEREAS, in the related Bernardi action, the parties will be filing a stipulation to

13

extend the deadline for the parties’ reply briefs in support of ATTM’s motion for a preliminary

14

injunction and the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration from September 30, 2011 until

15

October 4, 2011;

16

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between ATTM and Defendants that,

17

with the Court’s permission, Petitioners’ deadline to file their reply brief in support of their

18

Petition shall be extended until October 4, 2011.

19

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

20

September 28, 2011

21

BURSOR & FISHER P.A.

MAYER BROWN LLP

22

By: /s/ Scott A. Bursor
Scott A. Bursor (SBN 276006)

By: /s/ Donald M. Falk
Donald M. Falk (SBN 150256)

369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94306-2112
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-04412-CRB

Case3:11-cv-04412-CRB Document17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

L. Timothy Fisher
Sarah N. Westcot
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1010
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Petitioners Deborah L.
Schroeder and Astrid Mendoza

8
9
10

Filed09/28/11 Page3 of 3

Andrew J. Pincus (application for pro hac vice
forthcoming)
Evan M. Tager (application for pro hac vice
forthcoming)
Archis A. Parasharami (application for pro hac
vice forthcoming)
Kevin Ranlett (application for pro hac vice
forthcoming)
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Respondent AT&T Mobility LLC

11
12
13
14

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B), Scott Bursor

15

hereby attests that the signatories’ concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained.

16
17

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Honorable Charles R. Breyer

21
22

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

23
J

26
27

A

H

ER

LI

RT

25

. Breyer

arles R
udge Ch

NO

24

R NIA

UNIT
ED

S

Dated: ______________ __, 2011
October 4

RT
U
O

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

FO

18

[PROPOSED] ORDER

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

28
-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:11-CV-04412-CRB