Damasco v. PHD Media LLC

Filing 21

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 20 EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT PHD MEDIA LLC TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/8/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2012)

1

4

SEAN REIS ([e-mail])
EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
Rancho Santa Margarita, California 92688
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5

Attorneys for Plaintiff Jerome Damasco

2
3

6
7
8
9
10

MARC RACHMAN ([e-mail])
DAVIS & GILBERT LLP
1740 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant PHD Media L.L.C.

11
12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16

JEROME DAMASCO, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals,

17

Plaintiff,

18
v.
19
20
21
22

PHD MEDIA L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:11-cv-05353-RS
STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANT PHD MEDIA
L.L.C. TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT
Hon. Richard Seeborg
Action Filed: November 3, 2011

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

WHEREAS, on November 4, 2011 Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint, and

1
2

Defendant was served with the Complaint on November 16, 2011;

3

WHEREAS, the Parties have filed several stipulations to extend the deadline by

4

which Defendant must respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and on March 1, 2012, the Court

5

entered an Order extending the deadline for Defendant to file its responsive pleading to

6

March 14, 2012 (Dkt. 19);

7
WHEREAS, the Parties, along with certain third-parties involved in the conduct at

8
9
10

issue in this case, have engaged in settlement discussions and request an additional sixty (60)
days to complete those discussions;

11

WHEREAS, in light of the Parties’ advanced settlement discussions, and in the

12

unlikely event those discussions fail to result in an executed settlement agreement, the Parties

13

agree to extend the deadline for Defendant to file its responsive pleading in this case;

14
WHEREAS, Defendant does not seek an extension for the purpose of unnecessarily
15
16

delaying this action or for any other improper purpose;

17

WHEREAS, an extension of time would not alter the date of any event or deadline

18

already fixed by the Court, and the Parties do not currently intend to seek any additional

19

extensions;

20
21

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has no objection to extending the deadline by which Defendant
must respond to the Complaint.

22
//
23
24

//

25

//

26

//

27
28

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

2

1

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED by the Parties hereto, through their attorneys,

2

pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1 and 7-12 that Defendant’s deadline to answer, move, or otherwise

3

respond to the Complaint shall be extended to May 16, 2012.

4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5
6

Dated: March 8, 2012

By:/s/ Sean Reis
Sean P. Reis
EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
Attorneys for JEROME DAMASCO,
individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals

Dated: March 8, 2012

By: /s/ Marc Rachman
Marc Rachman
DAVIS & GILBERT LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
PHD MEDIA L.L.C.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

DATED: _______________
3/8/12

___________________________
Honorable Richard Seeborg
U.S. District Court Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

3