Houghtailing v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. et al
Filing
34
STIPULATION AND ORDER to continue entry of dismissal. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/16/2013. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
DuCHARME & COHEN
JAMES A. DuCHARME, ESQ., SBN 61002
E-MAIL: jducharme@pacbell.net
450 Taraval Street, P.M.B. 317
San Francisco, CA 94116-2530
Telephone: 415.495.4171
Facsimile: 888.668.4170
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JESSE HOUGHTAILING
VILLARREAL HUTNER & TODD PC
TRACY S. TODD, ESQ., SBN 172884
E-Mail: ttodd@vhattorneys.com
JULIE WONG, ESQ., SBN 247342
E-Mail: jwong@vhtattorneys.com
575 Market Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: 415.543.4200
Facsimile: 415.512.7674
Attorneys for Defendants
FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. and
PEPSICO, INC.
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17
18
JESSE HOUGHTAILING,
Plaintiff,
19
20
21
22
v.
FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., and
PEPSICO, INC., AND DOES 1 TO 100,
inclusive,
23
STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO
CONTINUE ENTRY OF DISMISSAL;
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
CONTINUANCE
Action Filed: August 24, 2011
Removal Filed: October 14, 2011
Trial Date: None Set
24
25
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-05062-TEH
Judge: Hon. Thelton E. Henderson
Defendants.
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-05062-TEH
Stipulation to Continue Entry of Dismissal 1
1
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT:
2
Plaintiff Jesse Houghtailing (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), by and through his counsel, and Defendants
3
Frito-Lay North America, Inc. and Pepsico, Inc. ("Defendants"), by and through their counsel, do hereby
4
5
agree, stipulate, and respectfully request as follows:
1.
WHEREAS, ON November 19, 2012 the court entered its Order of dismissal, 60 days
6
following, conditioned upon the performance of the settlement agreement or objection by a party;
7
2.
WHEREAS, the parties have not finalized the wording of the Release and Settlement
8
Agreement and the consideration has not been exchanged;
9
3.
WHEREAS, the parties believe they will be able to finalize the agreement and exchange
10
11
12
13
14
15
by February 18, 2013;
8.
THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE to continue the currently scheduled Dismissal up
to and including February 18, 2013, and request to Court to so Order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: January 15, 2013
DuCHARME & COHEN
16
By
17
s/ James A. DuCharme
JAMES A. DuCHARME
18
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JESSE HOUGHTAILING
19
20
21
Dated: January 15, 2013
VILLARREAL HUTNER & TODD PC
22
By
23
24
/s/ Julie Wong
TRACY S. TODD
JULIE WONG
Attorneys for Defendants
FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC.
and PEPSICO, INC.
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-05062-TEH
Stipulation to Continue Entry of Dismissal 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
ATTESTMENT OF CONCURRENCE PER GENERAL ORDER 45 FOR FILING:
I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document by the signatory Julie Wong, has been
obtained, and that a record of the concurrence shall be maintained by Du Charme & Cohen.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Vallejo, California this 15th day of January, 2013
7
8
9
/s/ James A. Du Charme
10
James A. Du Charme
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-05062-TEH
Stipulation to Continue Entry of Dismissal 3
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
3
Having considered the foregoing stipulation of the parties, the Court orders the Dismissal
4
in the instant matter, Houghtailing v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., et al., case number 3:11-cv-05062-
5
TEH, be continued to February 18, 2013, on the same conditions as this Court’s Order of November 19,
6
2012.
01/16
Dated: _________________, 2013
10
11
on
NO
HON. THELTON ltonHENDERSON
E. E. Henders
e
RT
13
FO
h
Judge T
H
ER
LI
12
14
A
9
R NIA
8
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
S
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNIT
ED
7
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-05062-TEH
Stipulation to Continue Entry of Dismissal 4
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?