Ross v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative

Filing 52

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 50 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE HER OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTIO filed by Soraya Ross. Responses due by 10/30/2012. Replies due by 11/6/2012.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/24/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Paul R. Kiesel, State Bar No. 119854
[e-mail]
Jeffrey A. Koncius, State Bar No. 189803
[e-mail]
KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90211-2910
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Paul O. Paradis, Esq., Pro Hac Vice
[e-mail]
Gina M. Tufaro, Esq., Pro Hac Vice
[e-mail]
Mark A. Butler, Esq.
[e-mail]
HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS,
Attorneys at Law
570 7th Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff SORAYA ROSS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

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 RE EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE HER
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
Complaint Filed: April 2, 2012

25
26
27
28
CV 12-1645 EMC
STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE OPPOSITION MOTION TO DISMISS

1
2

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

3

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation requesting the Court

4

to extend the time for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the TAC from September 25,

5

2012 to October 12, 2012;

6

WHEREAS, on September 27, 2012, the Court granted the requested extension;

7

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2012, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss the TAC

8
9
10
11
12

(“Motion to Dismiss”);
WHEREAS, the deadline for Plaintiff to file her opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (“Opposition”) is October 23, 2012;
WHEREAS, the deadline for Defendant to file its reply in support of the Motion to
Dismiss (“Reply”) is October 30, 2012;
WHEREAS, in order to accommodate a change in the schedule of Plaintiff’s Counsel,

13
Plaintiff requires additional time to oppose the Motion to Dismiss;
14
15
16
17
18

WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have met and conferred regarding an extension of
time for Plaintiff to file her Opposition and a corresponding extension of time for Defendant to
file its Reply;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT:
1.

19
20
21

The deadline to file Plaintiff’s Opposition is extended from October 23, 2012,
to October 30, 2012;

2.

The deadline to file Defendant’s Reply is extended from October 30, 2012 to
November 6, 2012.

22
23
24
25
26
27

DATED: October 23, 2012

KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
By:

/s/ Paul R. Kiesel
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

28
2

CV 12-1645 EMC
STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

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]

1
2
3
4
5
6

10

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]

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ross

7
8
9

12
13

DATED: October 23, 2012

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
By:

17

/s/ David I. Dalby
David Ian Dalby
One California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

18

Attorneys for Defendant

14
15
16

19
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

21

October 24, 2012
Dated: _________________________

ER

28
3

R NIA
FO

LI

dwa
Judge E

H

27

hen

rd M. C

RT

26

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

NO

25

EDWARD M. CHEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A

24

UNIT
ED

23

S DISTRICT
TE
C
A
T____________________________________

RT
U
O

22

S

20

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

CV 12-1645 EMC
STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS