Edwards et al v. National Milk Producers Federation et al
Filing
55
ORDER GRANTING 12 Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 11/28/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2011)
Case3:11-cv-04766-JSW Document12
Filed10/14/11 Page1 of 5
4
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
CHONG S. PARK, (SBN 163451, DC Bar No. 463050)
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202.429.3000
Facsimile: 202.429.3902
cpark@steptoe.com
5
Attorney for Defendant National Milk Producers Federation
6
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Elaine T. Byszewski (SBN222304)
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone 213.330.7150
Facsimile 213.330.7152
elaine@hbsslaw.com
1
2
3
7
8
9
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11
[Additional Counsel listed on signature page]
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
MATTHEW EDWARDS, et al.,
16
Plaintiffs,
18
v.
NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS
FEDERATION, et al.
19
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Defendants.
17
20
21
22
Whereas, on September 26, 2011, Matthew Edwards filed his Class Action Complaint for
23
Violations of state antitrust statutes and the common law of unjust enrichment against the National
24
Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperative Working Together, the Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.,
25
Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc.;
26
Whereas the National Milk Producers Federation was served with the Class Action
27
Complaint on September 27, 2011;
28
Steptoe &
Johnson LLP
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
Case3:11-cv-04766-JSW Document12
1
2
3
Filed10/14/11 Page2 of 5
Whereas the parties have conferred and jointly move the Court for an extension of Defendant
National Milk Producers Federation’s (“NMPF”) time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’
complaints in the following related actions: Edwards, et al. v. National Federation of Milk
4
Producers, et al., Case No 4:10-cv-4766 (DMR) and Robb, et al v. National Milk Producers
5
6
7
Federation, et al., Case No 3:11-cv-4791(JCS).
Whereas Counsel for plaintiffs have advised Counsel for Defendant NMPF that another
8
related action will be filed with this Court within the next two weeks; and the parties accordingly
9
believe that the interests of judicial economy and efficiency will be served if Defendant is permitted
10
11
to answer or otherwise respond collectively to all of the related complaints filed in this Court.
Whereas the parties believe that meeting and conferring regarding a discovery plan and other
12
case management issues would be more productive after Defendant has responded to the Complaint
13
14
and/or after any motion practice has been resolved; and the parties accordingly believe the case
15
management conference should be continued to a date on or after March 30, 2012, with the deadline
16
to meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (and ADR process selection) set
17
for 21 days prior to the case management conference, and with the deadline for the parties’ Rule 26(f)
18
19
report, initial disclosures, and joint case management statement set for 10 days prior to the
conference.
20
21
22
Defendant and Plaintiffs, through their respective Counsel, HEREBY STIPULATE AND
AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
23
1. Defendant NMPF’s deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ complaints in the Edwards, et al. v.
24
National Federation of Milk Producers, et al., Case No 4:10-cv-4766 (DMR) and Robb, et al
25
v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al., Case No 3:11-cv-4791(JCS) and forthcoming
26
related action: 21 days following service of last filed complaint, plus an additional 30 days.
27
28
Steptoe &
Johnson LLP
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
Case3:11-cv-04766-JSW Document12
Filed10/14/11 Page3 of 5
1
2. Plaintiffs’ opposition or response to Defendant NMPF’s filing: 60 days after Defendants’
2
filing.
3
3. Defendant NMPF’s reply to any opposition or response of Plaintiffs: 30 days after
4
Plaintiffs’ filing.
5
6
4. The initial case management conference: on or after March 30, 2012, with the deadline to
7
meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (and ADR process
8
selection) set for 21 days prior to the case management conference, and that deadline for the
9
parties’ Rule 26(f) report, initial disclosures, and joint case management statement set for 10
10
days prior to the conference.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
DATED: October 14, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
By:/s/ Chong S. Park
Chong S. Park
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone 202.429.3000
Facsimile 202.429.3902
CPark@steptoe.com
Attorney for Defendant
National Milk Producers Federation
20
21
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
22
By:/s/ Elaine T. Byszewski
Elaine T. Byszewski
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone 213.330.7150
Facsimile 213.330.7152
elaine@hbsslaw.com
23
24
25
26
27
28
Steptoe &
Johnson LLP
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
Case3:11-cv-04766-JSW Document12
Filed10/14/11 Page4 of 5
5
Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
George W. Sampson (pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 8TH Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone (206) 623-7292
Facsimile(206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com
george@hbsslaw.com
6
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
1
2
3
4
7
I, Chong S. Park, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of
the other signatories.
8
9
10
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
November
28
Dated the _________ day of ________________, 2011
11
12
_________________________________
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Steptoe &
Johnson LLP
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
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?