Houghtailing v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. et al
Filing
26
STIPULATION AND ORDER to Continue ADR Deadline. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/17/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2012)
1 DuCHARME & COHEN
JAMES A. DuCHARME, ESQ., SBN 61002
2 E-MAIL: jducharme@pacbell.net
450 Taraval Street, P.M.B. 317
3 San Francisco, CA 94116-2530
Telephone: 415.495.4171
4 Facsimile: 888.668.4170
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
JESSE HOUGHTAILING
6
VILLARREAL HUTNER & TODD PC
7 TRACY S. TODD, ESQ., SBN 172884
E-Mail: ttodd@vhattorneys.com
8 JULIE WONG, ESQ., SBN 247342
E-Mail: jwong@vhtattorneys.com
9 575 Market Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, California 94105
10 Telephone: 415.543.4200
Facsimile: 415.512.7674
11
Attorneys for Defendants
12 FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. and
PEPSICO, INC.
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
17 JESSE HOUGHTAILING,
18
19
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-05062-TEH
Judge: Hon. Thelton E. Henderson
Plaintiff,
v.
20 FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., and
PEPSICO, INC., AND DOES 1 TO 100,
21 inclusive,
22
STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO
CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR ADR
SESSION; [PROPOSED] ORDER
GRANTING CONTINUANCE
Action Filed: August 24, 2011
Removal Filed: October 14, 2011
Trial Date: None Set
23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
{100014613}
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-05062-TEH
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR ADR SESSION
1
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT:
2
Plaintiff Jesse Houghtailing (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel, and
3 Defendants Frito-Lay North America, Inc. and Pepsico, Inc. ("Defendants"), by and through their
4 counsel, do hereby agree, stipulate, and respectfully request as follows:
5
1.
WHEREAS, the Court ordered the Parties to complete their private ADR session
6 by July 31, 2012;
7
2.
WHEREAS, Defendants have been unable to complete Plaintiff's deposition due to
8 scheduling conflicts and Plaintiff's inability to sit for extended periods of time;
9
3.
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to continue the deadline to complete their
10 private ADR session;
11
8.
THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE to continue the currently scheduled
12 deadline to complete their private ADR session from July 31, 2012 to October 31, 2012.
13
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
14 Dated: July 13, 2012
DuCHARME & COHEN
15
s/ James A. Du Charme
16
By
JAMES A. DuCHARME
17
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JESSE HOUGHTAILING
18
19
20
Dated: July 16, 2012
21
VILLARREAL HUTNER & TODD PC
/s/ Julie Wong
TRACY S. TODD
JULIE WONG
By
22
23
Attorneys for Defendants
FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC.
and PEPSICO, INC.
24
25
26
27
28
{100014613}
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-05062-TEH
-1STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR ADR SESSION
1
ATTESTMENT OF CONCURRENCE PER GENERAL ORDER 45 FOR FILING:
2
I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document by the signatory James A.
3 Du Charme, has been obtained, and that a record of the concurrence shall be maintained by
4 Villarreal Hutner & Todd PC.
5
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of
6 America that the foregoing is true and correct.
7
Executed at San Francisco, California this 16th day of July, 2012.
8
9
10
/s/ Julie Wong
11
JULIE WONG
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{100014613}
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-05062-TEH
-2STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR ADR SESSION
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
6
v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., et al., case number 3:11-cv-05062-TEH, continued to October
31, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
R NIA
9
07/17
Dated: _________________, 2012
UNIT
ED
8
RT
U
O
S
7
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
NO
___________________________________
son
Hender
HON. THELTON ltonHENDERSON
e E. E.
e Th
11
Judg
RT
12
H
ER
13
14
FO
5
deadline for the Parties to complete their private ADR session in the instant matter, Houghtailing
LI
4
Having considered the foregoing stipulation of the parties, the Court orders the
A
3
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{100014613}
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-05062-TEH
-3STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR ADR SESSION
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?