Terry et al v. Beiersdorf, Inc.
Filing
8
STIPULATION AND ORDER PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-1 REGARDING TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 11/22/11. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Samuel R. Miller (SBN 66871)
srmiller@sidley.com
Ryan M. Sandrock (SBN 251781)
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone:
(415) 772-1200
Facsimile:
(415) 772-7400
T. Robert Scarborough (Pro Hac Vice To Be Submitted)
tscarborough@sidley.com
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Telephone:
(312) 853-7000
Facsimile:
(312) 853-7036
9
10
Attorneys For Defendant
Beiersdorf, Inc.
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PATRICIA TERRY, MARQUINITA TERRY, )
)
and TAANYKA TERRY,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
BEIERSDORF, INC., a Delaware Corporation )
)
and DOES 1-10, inclusive
)
)
Defendant
)
Case No. 11:05244 JCS
STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO
LOCAL RULE 6-1 REGARDING TIME
TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE
RESPOND
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-1 REGARDING TIME TO ANSWER OR
OTHERWISE RESPOND
SF1 1681367v.1
1
2
3
4
5
WHEREAS Plaintiffs served the above-captioned lawsuit on Defendant Beiersdorf, Inc.
(“Beiersdorf” or “Defendant”) on November 3, 2011 (the “Complaint”);
WHEREAS the time for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is
currently November 28, 2011;
WHEREAS Plaintiffs and Defendant have reached an agreement, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1,
6
to extend the time within which Defendant must answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to
7
January 11, 2012.
8
9
10
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the
undersigned counsel, on behalf of their respective clients, that Defendant will have until January 11,
2012 to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
11
12
13
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
Dated: November 18, 2011
KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
14
15
By: /s/ Behram V. Parekh
BEHRAM V. PAREKH
16
17
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18
19
Dated: November 18, 2011
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
20
21
By: /s/ Samuel R. Miller
SAMUEL R. MILLER
22
23
Attorneys for Beiersdorff
24
25
26
Pursuant to General Order 45, Part X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this
documents has been obtained from Behram V. Parekh and Samuel R. Miller.
27
2
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-1 REGARDING TIME TO ANSWER OR
OTHERWISE RESPOND
SF1 1681367v.1
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Nov. 22
Dated: __________________, 2011
RT
5
FO
NO
R NIA
______________________________________
The Honorable Joseph C. Spero,
o
C. Sper
s
United States Districteph
Judge Jo Judge
4
6
A
H
ER
LI
3
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
UNIT
ED
2
S
[PROPOSED] ORDER
RT
U
O
1
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-1 REGARDING TIME TO ANSWER OR
OTHERWISE RESPOND
SF1 1681367v.1
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?