Siegal et al v. Gamble et al

Filing 42

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXCEEDING PAGE LIMITS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/26/15. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2015)

Download PDF
1 EDWARD S. ZUSMAN (SBN 154366) ezusman@mzclaw.com 2 KEVIN K. ENG (SBN 209036) keng@mzclaw.com 3 MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP 465 California Street, 5th Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 438-4515 5 Facsimile: (415) 434-4505 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 STEVEN SIEGAL, JAMES RYBICKI, DAVID GROBLEBE, individually and as General Partner 13 of GROBCO II, and CHRISTIAN WIPF, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL 14 INDIVIDUALS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs,) ) vs. ) ) G. THOMAS GAMBLE, LOREN J. MILLER, ) HENRY LOWENSTEIN, PAUL W. BATEMAN, ) EDWARD M. GABRIEL, JAMES S. MAYER, ) BEHROOZ SARAFRAZ, LYNN BLYSTONE, ) ALFRED LOPEZ, MASTON CUNNINGHAM, ) JOHN DURBIN, GREG BILLINGER, K&L ) GATES LLP, CHARLES A. DALE III, JOSHUA ) LANE, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, ) INCLUSIVE, ) ) Defendants.) Case No. 13 Civ. 3570-RS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXCEEDING PAGE LIMITATIONS 23 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE LIMITATIONS CASE NO. 13 CIV. 3570-RS WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and certain Defendants (together, the “Settling Parties”) have 1 2 entered into a Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs will, on January 28, 2015, 3 4 file a Motion For Preliminary Approval of the Settlement; WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement involves multiple parties, and implicates jointly 5 6 administered proceedings currently in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of 7 Delaware (Case No. 12-12291 (MFW)) (the “Bankruptcy Proceedings”); WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have been preparing their Motion and supporting documents in 8 9 anticipation of the filing on January 28, 2015; WHEREAS, the Court’s Civil Local Rules provide for a 25-page limitation for motions 10 11 (see Civil L.R. 7-2(b)); WHEREAS, Plaintiffs anticipate that they will require additional pages beyond the 25- 12 13 page limit, due to the complexities of the case, including large number of parties, the related 14 Bankruptcy Proceedings, and the multiple legal issues implicated in the Motion For Preliminary 15 Approval of the Settlement; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs believe the additional discussion will benefit the parties and the 16 17 Court in that it will more clearly lay out the factual circumstances, procedural history, and 18 discussion of the legal analysis relevant to the upcoming Motion; 19 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs request an additional 5 pages for their Motion; 20 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between 21 and among all parties, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows (the “Stipulation”): 22 1. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to exceed page limitations shall be granted; 23 2. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum In Support of Motion For Preliminary Approval shall be 24 not more than 30 pages. 25 Dated: January 22, 2015_____ SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 26 27 By /s/ George S. Wang 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE LIMITATIONS CASE NO. 13 CIV. 3570-RS\ Attorneys for Defendants Paul W. Bateman, Greg Billinger, Maston Cunningham, John Durbin, Edward M. Gabriel, Henry Lowenstein, James S. Mayer, and Loren J. Miller 1 2 3 4 Dated: January 22, 2015______ AKERMAN LLP 5 6 By /s/ Karen Palladino Ciccone 7 Attorneys for Defendant Lynn Blystone 8 9 10 Dated: January 23, 2015______ By 11 /s/_____________________________ Behrooz Sarafraz Defendant Pro Se 12 13 14 Dated: January 21, 2015______ COOKE KOBRICK & WU LLP 15 By 16 17 /s/ Christopher C. Cooke Attorneys for Defendant Alfred Lopez 18 19 Dated: January 26, 2015______ REED SMITH LLP 20 By 21 22 /s/ James Neudecker Attorneys for Defendant G. Thomas Gamble 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: January 26, 2015______ K&L GATES LLP By /s/ Charles Tea Attorneys for Defendants K&L Gates LLP, Charles A. Dale III, and Joshua Lane 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE LIMITATIONS CASE NO. 13 CIV. 3570-RS\ 1 2 Dated: 3 4 5 January 21, 2015 MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP By /s/ Kevin K. Eng Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE LIMITATIONS CASE NO. 13 CIV. 3570-RS\ 1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and pursuant to Rule 7-11 of the Civil Local Rules, the 3 Court hereby adopts and approves the terms of the parties’ stipulation set forth above. Plaintiffs’ 4 Administrative Motion to exceed page limitations is granted. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum In Support 5 Of Motion For Preliminary Approval shall be not more than 30 pages in length. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: ____________________ 1/26/15 9 __________________________________ The Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE LIMITATIONS CASE NO. 13 CIV. 3570-RS\ 1 FILER’S ATTESTATION 2 I, Kevin K. Eng, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this 3 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1, I hereby attest that 4 George S. Wang, Karen Ciccone, Behrooz Sarafraz, Christopher C. Cooke, James Neudecker, 5 Charles Tea, and Kevin K. Eng concur in this filing. 6 7 8 9 /s/ Kevin K. Eng Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PAGE LIMITATIONS CASE NO. 13 CIV. 3570-RS\

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?