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

Filing 45

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 44 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER (REVISED) REGARDING HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE filed by U.S. Bank, N.A., Set/Reset Deadlines as to 44 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER (REVISED) RE GARDING HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE, 37 MOTION to Dismiss and/or Strike. Case Management Statement due by 1/30/2014. Case Management Conference set for 2/6/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Rep lies due by 2/27/2014. Motion to Dismiss Hearing set for 3/6/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen. Motion for preliminary approval hearing set for 2/6/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen. Motion due: 12/12/13. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/26/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2013)

Download PDF
1 [Counsel listed on next page] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CYNTHIA BROOKS, and JACOB SWOYER ) on Behalf of Themselves and All Others ) Similarly Situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) U.S. BANK, N.A., ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) Case No. C12-4935 EMC (JSC) [Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Edward M. Chen] REVISED STIPULATION REGARDING HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER Complaint Filed August 21, 2012 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 REVISED STIPULATION REGARDING HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE CASE NO. C12-4935 EMC (JSC) SF:365195.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel. (415) 421-7151 Fax (415) 362-8064 Email: ecervantez@altber.com Harvey Sohnen (SBN 62850) Patricia Kelly (SBN 99837) LAW OFFICES OF SOHNEN & KELLY 2 Theatre Square, Suite 230 Orinda, CA 94563 Tel. (925) 258-9300 Fax (925) 258-9315 Email: netlaw@pacbell.net 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 Joan B. Tucker Fife (SBN: 144572) jfife@winston.com Emily C. Schuman (SBN: 271915) eschuman@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-591-1000 Facsimile: 415-591-1400 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Emilie C. Woodhead (SBN: 240464) ewoodhead@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Telephone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 Attorneys for Defendant U.S. BANK, N.A. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 REVISED STIPULATION REGARDING HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE CASE NO. C12-4935 EMC (JSC) SF:365195.1 1 2 3 Plaintiffs CYNTHIA BROOKS and JACOB SWOYER (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant U.S. BANK, N.A. (“Defendant”) (collectively “Parties”) hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on September 23, 2013, the Parties informed the Court that they expected to 4 enter into a written settlement agreement and would submit a motion for preliminary approval of that 5 settlement, and therefore requested that certain case deadlines be continued and/or stayed (Dkt. 40); 6 WHEREAS, on September 24, 2013, the Court approved the Parties’ joint stipulation re- 7 setting Defendant’s deadline to file its reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike to 8 November 21, 2013, with a hearing and case management conference set for December 5, 2013 9 (Dkt. 41); 10 WHEREAS, on November 15, 2013, the Court sua sponte re-set the hearing on Defendant’s 11 Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike and the Parties’ case management conference to December 10, 2013 12 at 1:30 p.m. (Dkt. 42); 13 14 15 WHEREAS, Defendant’s counsel is unavailable on that date and the Parties met and conferred regarding availability on other dates and times; WHEREAS, the Parties submitted a stipulation to the Court on November 20, 2013 16 requesting an order to re-set the case management conference, Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike reply 17 and hearing deadlines, and to schedule the preliminary approval hearing to specific dates (Dkt. 43); 18 WHEREAS, the Court’s clerk emailed the Parties on November 22, 2013, notifying the 19 Parties that the Court is not available on the dates proposed by the Parties’ stipulation (Dkt. 43), 20 requesting the Parties to meet and confer and submit a revised stipulation to the Court, and advising 21 that the Court is available on January 23, 2014 and February 6, 2014 for the preliminary approval 22 hearing if Plaintiffs file a motion for preliminary approval on December 12, 2013; 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred and determined that both Parties are available for both a case management conference and preliminary approval hearing on February 6, 2014; NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate to and request an Order setting forth the following: 27 28 3 REVISED STIPULATION REGARDING HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE CASE NO. C12-4935 EMC (JSC) SF:365195.1 1 1. The Parties’ case management conference is re-scheduled to February 6, 2014 at 1:30 2 p.m.; 3 2. Plaintiffs will file a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement no later 4 than December 12, 2013; 5 3. Defendant will not oppose Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement; 6 4. The Court will hear Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of the proposed 7 settlement on February 6, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.; 8 5. The deadline for Defendant to file its reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss 9 and/or Strike is postponed until February 27, 2014, with the understanding that this 10 deadline shall be indefinitely continued if the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for 11 Preliminary Approval; and 12 6. The hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike is re-scheduled to March 6, 13 2014 at 1:30 p.m. or another day and time agreeable to the Court, with the understanding 14 that this hearing shall be indefinitely continued if the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for 15 Preliminary Approval. 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 4 REVISED STIPULATION REGARDING HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE CASE NO. C12-4935 EMC (JSC) SF:365195.1 1 Dated: November 22, 2013 Dated: November 22, 2013 2 By: /s/ Eve H. Cervantez___________ Eve H. Cervantez By: /s/ Joan B. Tucker Fife________ Joan B. Tucker Fife 3 4 5 6 Pursuant to N.D. Cal. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the above signatory. Harvey Sohnen (SBN 62850) Patricia Kelly (SBN 99837) LAW OFFICES OF SOHNEN & KELLY 2 Theatre Square, Suite 230 Orinda, CA 94563 Tel. (925) 258-9300 Fax (925) 258-9315 Email: netlaw@pacbell.net Joan B. Tucker Fife (SBN 144572) jfife@winston.com Emily C. Schuman (SBN: 271915) eschuman@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel. (415) 591-1000 Fax (415) 591-1400 Emilie C. Woodhead (SBN 240464) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Tel. (213) 615-1700 Fax (213) 615-1750 Email: ewoodhead@winston.com 15 Eve H. Cervantez (SBN 164709) Danielle Leonard (SBN 218201) Laura S. Trice (SBN 284837) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel. (415) 421-7151 Fax (415) 362-8064 Email: ecervantez@altber.com 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Attorneys for Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 REVISED STIPULATION REGARDING HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE CASE NO. C12-4935 EMC (JSC) SF:365195.1 1 ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO 3 ORDERED. 4 26 Dated: November___, 2013 UNIT ED United States District Judge RT 10 dwar Judge E ER 12 A H 11 en d M. Ch NO 9 R NIA 8 _________________________ TED EDWARD M. CHEN GRAN LI 7 FO 6 RT U O S 5 S DISTRICT TE C TA N F D IS T IC T O R C 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 REVISED STIPULATION REGARDING HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE CASE NO. C12-4935 EMC (JSC) SF:365195.1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?