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)

Download PDF
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?