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)

Download PDF
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?