Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Filing 62

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND PLAINTIFF STEPHEN ELLSWORTH'S TIME TO RESPOND TO AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 9/13/2012. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Matthew C. Helland, CA State Bar No. 250451
[e-mail]
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Rebekah L. Bailey, CA State Bar No. 258551
E. Michelle Drake, MN Bar No. 0387366*
Kai Richter, MN Bar No. 0296545*
Sarah W. Steenhoek, MN Bar No. 0390258*
*(admitted pro hac vice)
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17
18
19

STEPHEN ELLSWORTH, as an individual
and as a Representative of the classes and on
behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff,

20
21
22
23

v.
U.S. BANK, N.A. and American Security
Insurance Company,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:12-cv-02506-LB
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
PLAINTIFF STEPHEN
ELLSWORTH’S TIME TO RESPOND
TO AMERICAN SECURITY
INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION
TO DISMISS
ORDER

[CIVIL L.R. 6-1 AND 6-2]

24
25
26
27
28

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2, Plaintiff Stephen Ellsworth (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and Defendant American Security Insurance Company
(“ASIC”), through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that Plaintiff shall have up to and
STIPULATION
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-02506-LB

1

including September 28, 2012, to respond to ASIC’s Motion to Dismiss.1 The reason for the

2

requested enlargement of time is to provide Plaintiff with sufficient time to respond to ASIC’s

3

Motion to Dismiss. The parties have previously stipulated to allow ASIC additional time to

4

respond to the First Amended Complaint in accordance with Local Rule 6-1(a). As it is still early

5

in the proceedings, it is not anticipated that the requested time modification will have any effect

6

on this case’s schedule.

7
8

Dated: September 5, 2012

9

By:

/s/Peter S. Hecker
PETER S. HECKER
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
HAMPTON, LLP
Four Embarcadero Center 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attorney for ASIC

By:

/s/Kai H. Richter
KAI H. RICHTER (Pro Hac Vice)
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Attorneys for Plaintiff

10
11
12
13
14
15

Dated: September 5, 2012

16
17
18
19
20
21

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON

22

ASIC’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHALL BE MODIFIED AS SET FORTH HEREIN.

23
24

September 13,
Dated: ______________ 2012

By: ________________________________
The Honorable Laurel Beeler

25
26
1

27
28

Should the Court wish to reschedule the hearing date in light of the parties’ requested briefing
schedule, counsel for both parties are available November 1st or 15th for a hearing on ASIC’s
motion to dismiss.
STIPULATION
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-02506-LB