Larsen et al v. Nonni's Foods, LLC et al

Filing 23

ORDER re 22 Stipulation, filed by Chipita America, Inc., Nonni's Foods, LLC. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 12/27/2011. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Robert Boldt (SB# 180136)
Email: [e-mail]
Beth Marie Weinstein (SB# 252334)
Email: [e-mail]
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 S. Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
Nonni’s Foods LLC and Chipita America, Inc.

7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

TAMAR DAVIS LARSEN AND KIMBERLY S.
SETHAVANISH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

vs.
NONNI’S FOODS LLC AND CHIPITA
AMERICA, INC.,

Case No.: 11-CV-04758-SC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’
TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’
COMPLAINT, TO MODIFY BRIEFING
SCHEDULE AND TO POSTPONE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
L.R. 6-1(a), 7-12 and 16-2(e)

16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20

WHEREAS, on September 23, 2011, Plaintiffs Tamar Davis Larsen and Kimberly S.

21

Sethavanish (collectively, “Plaintiffs’) filed their “Complaint For Damages, Equitable, Declaratory

22

And Injunctive Relief” in the above-captioned Court, alleging claims against defendants Nonni’s

23

Foods LLC and Chipita America, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for violations of California

24

Business and Professions Code sections 17200 (Unfair Competition Law) and 17500 (False

25

Advertising Law) and California Civil Code section 1750 (Consumer Legal Remedies Act), as well

26

as claims for common law fraud and restitution; and

27

WHEREAS, on November 15, 2011, the parties filed a Second Stipulation to Extend

28

Defendants’ Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, thereby granting Defendants an extension to
–1–

US_ACTIVE-107491821.2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT – Case No. 11-CV-04758-SC

1
2
3
4
5
6

and including November 30, 2011 to respond to the Complaint; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2011, the parties filed a Third Stipulation to Extend
Defendants’ Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint; and
WHEREAS, the parties now agree to an additional extension of time for Defendants to
respond to the Complaint, through and including April 13, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the parties intend to participate in good faith settlement discussions, which may

7

obviate the need for the Court to decide matters relating to Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’

8

Complaint; and

9

WHEREAS, in light of the parties’ intent to participate in good faith settlement discussions,

10

the parties agree that the date of this Court’s Case Management Conference in this matter, currently

11

set for January 13, 2012, should be postponed to April 20, 2012 (or a date near to April 20, 2012), in

12

order to give the parties time to attempt to resolve the dispute privately and also to avoid wasting the

13

Court’s time and resources; and

14
15
16
17
18

WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, good causes exists to grant Defendants additional time
to respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and to postpone the Case Management Conference.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their
respective attorneys of record, that:
1. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, Defendants shall have an extension of time, to and
including April 13, 2012, to file a response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint;

19
20

2. Defendants will notice any necessary hearing for its response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint
no earlier than June 8, 2012; and

21
22

3. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, the following briefing schedule shall apply to
Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint:

23
24

a. Defendants’ responsive pleading to be due April 13, 2012

25

b. Plaintiffs’ opposition to be due May 11, 2012

26

c. Defendants’ reply to be due May 25, 2012

27
28

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

12/27/2011

_________________________

United States District Court Judge
–2–

US_ACTIVE-107491821.2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT – Case No. 11-CV-04758-SC

1
2

DATED: December 21, 2011.

3
4

LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER
SPIELBERG
By:

5
6

/S/ Janet Lindner Spielberg
Janet Lindner Spielberg
Attorney for Plaintiffs Tamar Davis Larsen and
Kimberly S. Sethavanish

7
8

DATED: December 21, 2011.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

9
By:

10
11
12
13
14
15

/S/ Beth M. Weinstein
C. Robert Boldt
Beth M. Weinstein
Attorneys for Defendants Nonni’s Foods LLC
and Chipita America, Inc.

FILER’S ATTESTATION:
Pursuant to General Order 45, Section X.B regarding signatures, I attest under the penalty of
perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.

16
17

DATED: December 21, 2011.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

18
19

By:

/S/ Beth M. Weinstein
Beth M. Weinstein

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–

US_ACTIVE-107491821.2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT – Case No. 11-CV-04758-SC