Ross v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative

Filing 46

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 45 CONCERNING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ITS RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFFS THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed by Soraya Ross. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/27/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (SBN 119854)
[e-mail]
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. (SBN 189803)
[e-mail]
KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff SORAYA ROSS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(Additional counsel listed on signature page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
SORAYA ROSS, individually and on behalf of )
)
all others similarly situated,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
SIOUX HONEY ASSOCIATION,
)
COOPERATIVE, an Iowa Entity,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)

Case No.: CV 12-1645 EMC
STIPULATION CONCERNING
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEFENDANT TO FILE ITS
RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED]
ORDER
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
Complaint Filed: April 2, 2012

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Third Amended Class
Action Complaint (the “TAC”);

23

WHEREAS, on September 24, 2012, Defense counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that

24

Defendant needed additional time to respond to the TAC due to a family emergency that required

25

defense counsel to travel out of state;

26
27
28

WHEREAS, the deadline for Defendant Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative to
answer or otherwise respond to the TAC was September 25, 2012;
WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have met and conferred regarding an extension of
CV 12-1645 EMC
STIPULATION CONCERNING EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ITS
RESPONSIVE PLEADING

1

time for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the TAC and a corresponding extension of

2

time for Plaintiff to file her opposition to any motion filed by Defendant should it file a pleading

3

other than an Answer to the TAC;

4

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT:

5

1.

extended from September 25, 2012 to October 12, 2012;

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the TAC is hereby

2.

In the event that Defendant files a motion to dismiss the TAC, Plaintiff’s
opposition to such motion shall be filed fourteen days after the deadline for
such opposition to be filed pursuant to the Local Rules and the Defendant’s
deadline for a reply shall be calculated from the date that such opposition is
filed.

DATED: September 26, 2012

KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
By:

/s/ Jeffrey A. Koncius
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
Mark A. Butler, Esq.
HORWITZ, HORWITZ &
PARADIS, Attorneys at Law
570 7th Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

24
25
26
27
28
2

CV 12-1645 EMC
STIPULATION CONCERNING EXTENSION
OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ITS
RESPONSIVE PLEADING

Joseph J. M. Lange, Esq.
JOSEPH J. M. LANGE
LAW CORPORATION
222 North Sepulveda Blvd.Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

1
2
3
4
5

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ross

6
DATED: September 26, 2012

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

7
By:

11

/s/ David I. Dalby
David Ian Dalby
One California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
General 415-362-6000
Mobile [phone]
Fax
415-834-9070

12

Attorneys for Defendant

8
9
10

13
14
27
DATED: September ___, 2012

17

S
UNIT
ED

20

RT

22

dwa
Judge E

ER

H

23
24

hen

rd M. C

NO

21

O ORD

IT IS S

R NIA

EDWARD M. CHEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ERED

FO

19

RT
U
O

18

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

LI

16

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

A

15

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

25
26
27
28
3

CV 12-1645 EMC
STIPULATION CONCERNING EXTENSION
OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ITS
RESPONSIVE PLEADING