Roe v. American Databank, LLC

Filing 77

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES. Responses due July 25, 2014, at 5 p.m.. Signed by Judge Alsup on July 22, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

ASTRAILIA I. DUNFORD, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 13-03829 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN DATABANK LLC,

13

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES

Defendant.
/

14
15

1.

Defendant may file a response to plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for

16

summary judgment, or in the alternative, partial summary judgment (not to exceed seven pages)

17

by 5 P.M. ON JULY 25.

18

2.

Also by 5 P.M. ON JULY 25, plaintiff shall explain (in a submission not to exceed

19

three pages) whether (and how) numerosity for the proposed classes has been satisfied.

20

(The Court is in receipt of the parties’ prior stipulation (Dkt. No. 40-5).) Please lay out the

21

proposed class definitions and explain how there could be a finding that each of the proposed

22

classes is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: July 22, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE