High v. The Choice Manufacturing Company, Inc. et al

Filing 59

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/1/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2012)

1
2
3
4

VARNUM LLP
BRION B. DOYLE (Michigan Bar No. P67870)
Bridgewater Place
P.O. Box 352
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
[phone]
[e-mail]
Admitted Pro Hac Vice

5
6
7
8
9

DOWNEY BRAND LLP
JAMIE P. DREHER (Bar No. 209380)
SPENCER W. CHRISTENSEN (Bar No. 267154)
621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814-4731
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

10
11

Attorneys for Defendants
MEPCO FINANCE CORPORATION and
INDEPENDENT BANK CORPORATION

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

17

JACKIE L. HIGH, et al. on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated,

18

Plaintiff,

16

19

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT ; ORDER

v.

20

Case No. CV 11 5478

THE CHOICE MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC., MEPCO FINANCE
CORPORATION, and DOES 3 through 20,
inclusive,

21
22

Defendants.
23
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a) and 7(1) – (3), Defendants MEPCO Finance

24
25

Corporation (“MEPCO”) and Independent Bank Corporation (“IBC”), by and through their

26

respective counsel Downey Brand LLP, and Plaintiffs Jackie L. High, Travis Peavy and Loretta

27

Alva (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their respective counsel The Mehdi Firm, hereby stipulate as

28

follows:
1230093.1

1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

WHEREAS, on May 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)

2

against The Choice Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“Choice”), MEPCO, IBC, Peter Masi, Darain

3

Atkinson and Cory Atkinson in the above-referenced matter;

4

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served MEPCO with the SAC on May 10, 2012;

5

WHEREAS, on May 11, 2012, counsel for plaintiffs requested waiver of service of

6

process on IBC from counsel for MEPCO if they were also representing IBC, to which

7

plaintiffs received no response and hence are in the process of executing service of

8

process on IBS;

9

WHEREAS, MEPCO currently has until May 29, 2012 to answer or respond to Plaintiffs’

10

SAC;

11
12

WHEREAS, MEPCO has requested and Plaintiffs have consented to an additional 10 days
for MEPCO’s answer or response to the SAC.

13
14

WHEREAS, the extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline currently set
by the Court;

15

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the status of the service of process on IBC, MEPCO, IBC

16

and Plaintiffs desire to stipulate to a briefing schedule should MEPCO and IBC respond to the

17

SAC with a motion to dismiss;

18

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between undersigned

19

counsel for the parties, that MEPCO and IBC shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’

20

SAC by June 8, 2012.

21
22

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED by and between undersigned counsel for the parties, that
if MEPCO and IBC respond by filing a motion to dismiss:

23
24

(1) Plaintiffs Opposition Brief will be filed with the Court and served on MEPCO and
IBC by July 6, 2012;

25
26

(2) MEPCO and IBC’s Reply Brief will be filed with the Court and served on Plaintiffs
by July 20, 2012;

27
28

(3) MEPCO, IBC and Plaintiffs will meet and confer with each other and agree upon a
hearing date for any motion to dismiss.
1230093.1

2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

DATED: May 24 , 2012

DOWNEY BRAND LLP

2
3

By:

/s/ Spencer W. Christensen
SPENCER W. CHRISTENSEN
Attorney for Defendant
MEPCO FINANCE CORPORATION

4
5
6

DATED: May 24, 2012

THE MEHDI FIRM

7
8

By:

/s/ Azra Mehdi
AZRA MEHDI
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JACKIE L. HIGH, TRAVIS PEAVY, and LORETTA
ALVA individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated

9
10
11
12
13

Pursuant to General Order No. 45 Section X(B), all signatories concur in filing this
stipulation.

14
15

Dated: May 23, 2012

By:

/s/ Spencer W. Christensen_______

16
[PROPOSED] ORDER

20

June 1, 2012
Dated: _________________________

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

22

RT

23

FO

NO

_________________________________________
THE HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN
en
d M. Ch
e Edwar
Judg

24
25

A

H

ER

LI

21

UNIT
ED

19

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

18

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

R NIA

17

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

26
27
28
1230093.1

3
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT