Hubbard et al v. Wenner Media LLC
Filing
66
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 65 TO RESET DATES OF INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ARGUMENT ON MOTION filed by Jasmine Hubbard, Marvel Mills Case Management Statement due by 1/10/2013. Case Management Conference set for 1/17/2013 01:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 1/17/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/22/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2012)
Sean Reis (SBN 184004)
1 sreis@edelson.com
Edelson McGuire, LLP
2 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
3 Telephone: (949) 459-2124
4
Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
Ryan D. Andrews (admitted pro hac vice)
5 Edelson McGuire, LLC
350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Fl.
6 Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
7 Facsimile: (312) 589-26378
randrews@edelson.com
8
9 Counsel for Plaintiffs
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
JASMINE HUBBARD AND MARVEL
13 MILLS, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
vs.
16
17 WENNER MEDIA LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company
18
Defendant.
19
20
Case No. 3:11-cv-04648-EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO RESET DATES OF INITIAL
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND ARGUMENT ON MOTION
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2 of the United States District Court for the
21 Northern District of California and Rule 4 of Civil Standing Order – General of the Honorable
22 Edward M. Chen, it is hereby stipulated by and among Plaintiffs Jasmine Hubbard and Marvel
23 Mills and Defendant Wenner Media LLC (collectively the “Parties”), by and through their
24 respective counsel of record, as follows:
25
1.
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this case on September 20, 2011. On December 9,
26 2011, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer to the Southern
27 District of New York (“Defendant’s Motion”). Defendant’s Motion has been fully briefed and
28
oral argument was originally scheduled for February 17, 2012.
1
STIPULATION
Case No. CV-11-04648 EMC
1
2.
The Parties wished to engage in settlement discussions, indicated a desire to
2 schedule an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge, and had an ADR phone
3 conference on February 14, 2012. In addition, the Parties had reason to believe that discovery
4 from third-parties would maximize the Parties ability to engage in meaningful settlement
5 discussions.
6
3.
In consideration of this, the Parties stipulated to a Stay of sixty (60) days, which
7 this Court signed on February 13, 2012. (Dkt. 49.) During the stipulated period, the Parties
8 requested that this Court issue no decision on Defendant’s Motion.
9
4.
The Parties again stipulated to move the hearing date on Defendant’s Motion from
10 April 20, 2012 to August 17, 2012. (Dkt. 57.)
11
5.
Due to delays in the discovery process, the Parties stipulated to move the settlement
12 conference date, as well as the hearing date on Defendant’s Motion that was scheduled for August
13 17, 2012. (Dkt. 63.)
14
6.
On August 7, 2012, the Court entered an Order setting the hearing date on
15 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, as well as the Case Management Conference, for November 2,
16 2012. (Dkt. 64.)
17
7.
Since the entry of that Order, the Parties have received additional third-party
18 discovery and have begun discussing an alternative settlement model.
19
8.
The Parties believe that they will be able to determine in the next few weeks if the
20 settlement of this matter pursuant to the terms currently under discussion can be effectuated and
21 that it would be in the best interests of judicial economy and efficiency to continue the hearing on
22 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and the Case Management Conference.
23
9.
This Stipulation will be the last request for a continuance of hearing on Defendant’s
24 Motion and the Case Management Conference.
25
10.
This stipulation would alter certain preliminary deadlines established by this Court,
26 including the obligation to file a Joint Case Management Statement in advance of the Case
27 Management Conference currently scheduled for November 2, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.
28
2
STIPULATION
Case No. C 11-4648-EMC
1
a.
The Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for Friday, November
2 2, 2012 shall be continued to Friday, January 11, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor,
3 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the
4 Court.
5
b.
Oral argument on Defendant’s Motion shall be continued to the same date
6 and time as the Initial Case Management Conference, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the
7 Court.
8
c.
The October 26, 2012 deadline for the Parties to file a Joint Case
9 Management Statement shall be continued to January 4, 2013.
10
This is the fifth stipulated time modification in this case; on November 7, 2011, the Parties
11 filed a joint stipulation to extend the time for Defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to
12 the Complaint, and the Court so ordered on November 9, 2011. On February 10, 2012, the Parties
13 filed a stipulation and proposed order to reset the Case Management Conference and oral
14 argument on Defendant’s Motion, which the Court so ordered on February 13, 2012. On April 9,
15 2012, the Parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to reset the Case Management Conference
16 and oral argument on Defendant’s Motion, which the Court so ordered on April 10, 2012. On
17 August 3, 2012, the Parties filed a stipulation and proposed order to reset the Case Management
18 Conference and oral argument on Defendant’s Motion, which the Court so ordered, with
19 modification, on August 7, 2012, resetting the date for November 2, 2012. No trial date has been
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28
3
STIPULATION
Case No. C 11-4648-EMC
1 set, so this extension will not require that a trial date be rescheduled, but it will require that the
2 Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines be rescheduled, as set forth supra.
3
4
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
5
6
DATED this 19th day of October 2012.
7 EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
8
9
10
11
12
By:_/s/ Thomas R. Burke______
By:__/s/ Sean Reis_______________
Sean Reis
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Phone: (949) 459-2124
Attorneys for Jasmine Hubbard and Marvel
Mills
Thomas R. Burke
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111-6533
Phone: (415) 276-6500
Attorneys for Wenner Media LLC
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION
Case No. C 11-4648-EMC
1
2
CERTIFICATION
I, Sean Reis, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file
3 this Joint Case Management Statement and Request to Continue. In compliance with Civil Local
4 Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Sharon Schneier has concurred in this filing.
5
Dated: October 19, 2012
6
EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
7
8
By
/s/ Sean Reis
SEAN REIS
Attorneys for
Plaintiffs Jasmine Hubbard and Marvel Mills
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
STIPULATION
Case No. C 11-4648-EMC
1
ORDER
2
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
__________________________________________
RT
U
O
THE HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN
UNITED STATES ERED
RD DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
9
10
11
OO
IT IS S
DIFIED
AS MO
NO
12
RT
ER
H
13
dward
Judge E
14
N
n
F
D IS T IC T O
R
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
STIPULATION
Case No. C 11-4648-EMC
M. Che
R NIA
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
DATED: October ___, 2012
Defendant's motion to dismiss is reset
for January17, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.
FO
7
Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.
LI
6
A
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the November 2, 2012 Initial Case Management
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Conference shall be rescheduled to Friday, January 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th
S
4
Pursuant to stipulation, the foregoing is approved and IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNIT
ED
3
C
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?