Lorain v. Salesforce.com, Inc.

Filing 18

STIPULATION AND ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO ANOTHER DISTRICT JUDGE re 13 Stipulation filed by Salesforce.com, Inc.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/16/11. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)

1
2
3
4

ELLEN C. DOVE, Bar No. 64034
[e-mail]
Law Offices of Ellen C. Dove
5325 Elkhorn Blvd., #160
Sacramento, California 95842
Telephone:
916.331-0111
Facsimile:
916.726.8576

5
6

Attorneys for Plaintiff
STEVEN L. LORAIN

10

ARTHUR M. EIDELHOCH, Bar No. 168096
[e-mail]
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
650 California Street
20th Floor
San Francisco, California 94108.2693
Telephone:
415.433.1940
Facsimile:
415.399.8490

11

Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant
SALESFORCE.COM, INC.

7
8
9

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

STEVEN L. LORAIN,

17

Plaintiff,

18

v.

19

SALESFORCE.COM, INC.,

20

Defendant.

Case No. C11-4934 EMC
STIPULATION REGARDING TRANSFER
OF CASE FROM THE HONORABLE
JUDGE CHEN AND RESPONSIVE
PLEADING AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
COMPLAINT FILED: October 5, 2011
TRIAL DATE: No date set.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. C11-4934 EMC

1

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action, Steven Lorain,

2

through his attorney Ellen C. Dove, and Salesforce.com, now appearing through its attorney Arthur

3

M. Eidelhoch of Littler Mendelson, that the above action may and will be reassigned and transferred

4

from the Honorable Edward M. Chen. The parties make this stipulation with regard to the

5

following:

6

Both of the parties and the Court have been advised of the existence of a conflict or potential

7

conflict of interest between the Honorable Edward M. Chen and counsel for Plaintiff and also

8

counsel for Defendant.

9

The parties understand the Court will reassign this matter. The parties request reassignment

10

to an Article III Judge, and not a Magistrate Judge. The parties do not by way of this stipulation

11

consent to be reassigned to a Magistrate Judge.

12

Plaintiff has a pending motion and Plaintiff would like for the briefing schedule and hearing

13

date (December 2, 2011) to remain intact, if possible. Currently, Defendant’s opposition is due on or

14

before November 14, 2011 and Plaintiff’s reply is due on or before November 18, 2011. The parties

15

will comply with those briefing deadlines. In the event the reassigned Judge is unable to hear

16

Plaintiff’s pending motion on December 2, 2011, Defendant will not object to the earliest new

17

hearing date the Court can assign, provided that the parties will meet and confer to ensure that

18

counsel are available.

19
20
21

Defendant’s responsive pleading shall be filed on or before November 23, 2011. The parties’
stipulation in this regard does not alter the date of any hearing or deadline set by the Court.
It is Plaintiff’s position that time is of the essence as to a potential impending termination of

22

his COBRA benefits on December 31, 2011.

23

Dated: November 14, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

24
/s/ Ellen C. Dove
Ellen C. Dove
Law Offices of Ellen C. Dove
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STEVEN L. LORAIN

25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

2.

Case No. C11-4934 EMC

1
2
3
4
5

I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THE CONTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT IS
ACCEPTABLE TO ALL PERSONS REQUIRED TO SIGN IT.
Dated: November 14, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

6

/s/ Arthur M. Eidelhoch
Arthur M. Eidelhoch
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
A Professional Corporation
Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant
SALESFORCE.COM, INC.

7
8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED
Consistent with the parties’ Stipulation, notice regarding reassignment of this case and the

12

hearing date for the above-referenced motion shall be forthcoming from the Court.

13

hereby recuses itself from any and all further proceedings in this matter. The Clerk of the Court
shall reassign this case to another District Judge.
Dated: _______________, 2011
S DISTRICT
Nov. 16
TE
By: __________________________________
C
TA
The Honorable Edward M. Chen
United States District Judge

18

D
RDERE
S SO O IED
IT I
DIF
AS MO

RT

dwar
Judge E

ER

H

20

en

d M. Ch

NO

19

21
22

R NIA

Firmwide:105144586.1 068297.1003

LI

17

A

16

UNIT
ED

S

RT
U
O

15

FO

14

This Court

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

3.

Case No. C11-4934 EMC