Edwards et al v. National Milk Producers Federation et al

Filing 56

ORDER GRANTING 14 Stipulation Extending Time to 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 Document14

1
2
3
4

Filed10/17/11 Page1 of 5

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
Jan N. Little (SBN100029)
Paula L. Blizzard (SBN207920)
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

5

8

SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP
Ross H. Garber (Pro Hac Vice pending)
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone [phone]
[e-mail]

9

Attorneys for Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc.

6
7

10
11
12
13

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Elaine T. Byszewski (SBN222304)
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
[e-mail]

14
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15
[Additional Counsel listed on signature page]
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19

MATTHEW EDWARDS, et al.,

20

Plaintiffs,

22

v.
NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS
FEDERATION, et al.

23

CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Defendants.

21

24
25
26
27

Whereas, on September 26, 2011, Matthew Edwards filed his Class Action Complaint for
Violations of state antitrust statutes and the common law of unjust enrichment against the National

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
585056.01

Case3:11-cv-04766-JSW Document14

Filed10/17/11 Page2 of 5

1

Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperative Working Together, the Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.,

2

Land O’ Lakes, Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc.;

3

Whereas Agri-Mark, Inc. was served with the Class Action Complaint on September 29,

4
2011;
5
6

Whereas the parties have conferred and jointly move the Court for an extension of Defendant

7

Agri-Mark Inc.’s (“AMI”) time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ complaints in the

8

following related actions: Edwards, et al. v. National Federation of Milk Producers, et al., Case No

9

4:10-cv-4766 (DMR) and Robb, et al v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al., Case No 3:11-cv-

10
11

4791(JCS).
Whereas Counsel for plaintiffs have advised counsel for Defendant AMI that another related

12
action will be filed with this Court within the next two weeks; and the parties accordingly believe that
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

the interests of judicial economy and efficiency will be served if Defendant is permitted 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
case management issues would be more productive after Defendant has responded to the Complaint
and/or after any motion practice has been resolved; and the parties accordingly believe the case
management conference should be continued to a date on or after March 30, 2012, with the deadline

20
21

to meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (and ADR process selection) set

22

for 21 days prior to the case management conference, and with the deadline for the parties’ Rule 26(f)

23

report, initial disclosures, and joint case management statement set for 10 days prior to the

24

conference.

25
26

Defendant and Plaintiffs, through their respective Counsel, HEREBY STIPULATE AND
AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
585056.01

Case3:11-cv-04766-JSW Document14

Filed10/17/11 Page3 of 5

1

1. Defendant AMI’s deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ complaints in the Edwards, et al. v.

2

National Federation of Milk Producers, et al., Case No 4:10-cv-4766 (DMR) and Robb, et al

3

v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al., Case No 3:11-cv-4791(JCS) and forthcoming

4
related action: 21 days following service of last filed complaint, plus an additional 30 days.
5
6

2. Plaintiffs’ opposition or response to Defendant AMI’s filing: 60 days after Defendants’

7

filing.

8

3. Defendant AMI’s reply to any opposition or response of Plaintiffs: 30 days after Plaintiffs’

9

filing.

10
11

4. The initial case management conference: on or after March 30, 2012, with the deadline to
meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (and ADR process

12
selection) set for 21 days prior to the case management conference, and that deadline for the
13
14
15

parties’ Rule 26(f) report, initial disclosures, and joint case management statement set for 10
days prior to the conference.

16
17

DATED: October 17, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

18

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

19

By:/s/ Elaine T. Byszewski
Elaine T. Byszewski
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
[e-mail]

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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 [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
585056.01

Case3:11-cv-04766-JSW Document14

Filed10/17/11 Page4 of 5

1
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
2
3
4
5
6

By: __/s/ Paula L. Blizzard
Paula L. Blizzard
Jan N. Little
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

7

10

Ross H. Garber (Pro Hac Vice pending)
SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone [phone]
[e-mail]

11

Attorney for Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc.

8
9

12
13

I, Paula L. Blizzard, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from
each of the other signatories.

14
15

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

16

November
28
Dated the _________ day of ________________, 2011

17
18

_________________________________
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
585056.01

Case3:11-cv-04766-JSW Document14

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

1
2
3
4
5

I, Maria S. Canales, declare as follows:
I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California in the office of a
member of the bar of this court at whose direction the following service was made. I am over the age
of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is Keker & Van Nest LLP, 633
Battery Street, San Francisco, California 94111-1809.

6
7
8
9
10
11

Filed10/17/11 Page5 of 5

On October 17, 2011, I served the following document(s):
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT
to all named counsel of record as follows:
BY ECF (ELECTRONIC CASE FILING): I e-filed the above-detailed documents utilizing the



United States District Court, Northern District of California’s mandated ECF (Electronic Case Filing) service
on October 17, 2011. Counsel of record are required by the Court to be registered e-filers, and as such are
automatically e-served with a copy of the documents upon confirmation of e-filing.

12
13
14
15

Executed on October 17, 2011, at San Francisco, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.

16
17
/s/ Maria S. Canales

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF SERVICE
585056.01

CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR