Ang et al v. Whitewave Foods Company et al
Filing
29
STIPULATION AND ORDER for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 09/19/2013. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2013)
1 Angela C. Agrusa (SBN 131337)
aagrusa@linerlaw.com
2 Randall J. Sunshine (SBN 137363)
rsunshine@linerlaw.com
3 Nathan M. Davis (SBN 287452)
ndavis@linerlaw.com
4 LINER GRODE STEIN YANKELEVITZ
SUNSHINE REGENSTREIF & TAYLOR LLP
5 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90024.3503
(310) 500-3500
6 Telephone:
Facsimile:
(310) 500-3501
7
Attorneys for WWF OPERATING COMPANY
8 d/b/a/ WHITEWAVE FOODS (erroneously sued
as WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY), HORIZON
9 ORGANIC DAIRY LLC, and DEAN FOODS COMPANY
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13 ALEX ANG and KEVIN AVOY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
vs.
16
WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY, DEAN
17 FOODS COMPANY, WWF OPERATING
COMPANY, and HORIZON ORGANIC
18 DAIRY LLC,
19
Case No. CV 13 1953 LB
STIPULATION TO ALLOW
DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY BRIEF
IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PAGES;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Defendants.
20
21
Plaintiffs Alex Ang and Kevin Avoy (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants WWF Operating Co.
22 d/b/a WhiteWave Foods, Horizon Organic Dairy, LLC, and Dean Foods Company (collectively
23 “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate as follows:
24
Whereas Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Action and Representative
25 Action Complaint was within the page limits prescribed by the Local Rules;
26
Whereas Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Class
27 Action and Representative Action Complaint exceeded the page limits prescribed by the Local
28 Rules by more than two pages;
41299.019-1060947v5.1
Case No. CV 13 1953 LB
STIPULATION TO ALLOW DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PAGES;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1
Whereas numerous issues exist requiring responses, and Defendants’ counsel diligently
2 have endeavored to limit the Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’
3 Class Action and Representative Action Complaint to fifteen pages, as prescribed by the Local
4 Rules, and after multiple rounds of editing have succeeded in paring the document to less than
5 seventeen pages; and
6
Whereas Defendants require an additional two pages over the page limit prescribed by the
7 Local Rules, lest their argument become cryptic and less clear for the Court’s careful
8 consideration,
9
Now therefore, the parties agree that, subject to the Court’s approval, Defendants may file
10 a Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Class Action and
11 Representative Action Complaint in excess of the page limit set by the Local Rules, not to exceed
12 seventeen pages.
13
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
14
15 Dated: September 18, 2013
16
LINER GRODE STEIN YANKELEVITZ
SUNSHINE REGENSTREIF & TAYLOR LLP
By:
17
18
19
20
21
Dated: September 18, 2013
22
PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM LLP
By:
23
24
/s/ Angela C. Agrusa
Angela C. Agrusa
Attorneys for WWF OPERATING COMPANY
d/b/a/ WHITEWAVE FOODS (erroneously sued
as WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY),
HORIZON ORGANIC DAIRY LLC, and DEAN
FOODS COMPANY
/s/ David P. Wilson
David P. Wilson
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALEX ANG and KEVIN
AVOY
25
26
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank. [Proposed] Order to follow on subsequent page]
27
28
41299.019-1060947v5.1
Case No. CV 13 1953 LB
2
STIPULATION TO ALLOW DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PAGES
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
S
UNIT
ED
RT
U
O
09/19
3 DATED: _______________, 2013
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
4
5
R NIA
1
Honorable Samuel Conti
United States District Judge
el Conti
ge Samu
Jud
6
9
10
A
H
ER
LI
RT
8
FO
NO
7
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41299.019-1060947v5.1
Case No. CV 13 1953 LB
3
STIPULATION TO ALLOW DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN PAGES
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?