Winans v. Emeritus Corporation

Filing 27

STIPULATION AND ORDER Regarding Defendant's Time to Respond to Amended Complaint. Motion terminated: 18 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Emeritus Corporation. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 10/30/2013. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2013)

1 KATHRYN A. STEBNER (SBN 121088)
SARAH COLBY (SBN 194475)
2 GEORGE KAWAMOTO (SBN 280358)
STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES
3 870 Market Street, Suite 1212
San Francisco, CA 94102
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 ARVILLE WINANS, by and through his guardian ad litem, RENEE MOULTON
7 Additional Counsel For Plaintiff Listed On Following Page
8 THOMAS J. NOLAN (SBN 66992)
[e-mail]
9 HARRIET S. POSNER (SBN 116097)
[e-mail]
10 JASON D. RUSSELL (SBN 169219)
[e-mail]
11 LISA M. GILFORD (SBN 171641)
[e-mail]
12 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
13 Los Angeles, California 90071-3144
Telephone: [phone]
14 Facsimile: [phone]
15 Attorneys for Defendant
EMERITUS CORPORATION
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
19
20 ARVILLE WINANS, by and through his
guardian ad litem, RENEE MOULTON, on his
21 own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated,
22
Plaintiff,
23
v.
24
EMERITUS CORPORATION and DOES 1
25 through 100,
26

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 3:13-cv-03962- SC
REVISED STIPULATION REGARDING
DEFENDANT’S TIME TO RESPOND
TO AMENDED COMPLAINT;
DECLARATION OF THOMAS J.
NOLAN PURSUANT TO L.R. 6-2 (a)

27
28
Revised Stipulation Regarding Defendant’s Time To Respond To Amended Complaint – 3:13-cv-03962-SC

1 Additional Counsel For Plaintiff:
MICHAEL D. THAMER (SBN 101440)
2 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. THAMER
Old Callahan School House
3 12444 South Highway 3
Post Office Box 1568
4 Callahan, California 96014-1568
Tel: [phone]
5 Fax: [phone]
6 ROBERT S. ARNS (SBN 65071)
THE ARNS LAW FIRM
7 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (415) 495 -7888
9
W. TIMOTHY NEEDHAM (SBN 96542)
10 JANSSEN MALLOY LLP
730 Fifth Street
11 Eureka, CA 95501
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 GUY B. WALLACE (SBN 176151)
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
14 KONECKY LLP
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
15 San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
16 Facsimile: [phone]
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Revised Stipulation Regarding Defendant’s Time To Respond To Amended Complaint – 3:13-cv-03962-SC

1

WHEREAS, on July 29, 2013, Plaintiff Arville Winans commenced an action in the

2 Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda entitled Arville Winans, by
3 and through his Guardian ad litem, Renee Moulton, on his own behalf and on behalf of others
4 similarly situated v. Emeritus Corporation and Does 1 through 100, Case No. RG 13689560 (the
5 “State Court Action”), and served process on Defendant Emeritus Corporation on July 30, 2013;
6

WHEREAS, on August 27, 2013, Defendant petitioned to remove the State Court Action

7 to this Court;
8

WHEREAS, on August 30, 2013, the parties agreed that Defendant would be given until

9 September 26, 2013 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint;
10

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

11 Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”);
12

WHEREAS, on September 26, 2013, the parties agreed to a briefing schedule to allow

13 Plaintiff four weeks to oppose the Motion to Dismiss or, alternatively, to amend his Complaint;
14

WHEREAS, on October 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint in this Action (the

15 “Amended Complaint”);
16

WHEREAS, on October 25, 2013, the parties agreed to a briefing schedule to allow both

17 parties sufficient time to bring and respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Amended
18 Complaint, and submitted a stipulation to that effect;
19

WHEREAS, in the interests of convenience and fairness to the parties and the Court, the

20 parties have further agreed to a revised briefing schedule to accommodate the Thanksgiving and
21 winter holidays;
22

NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant, by and through their counsel of record and

23 subject to Court approval, hereby stipulate that:
24

1.

Defendant shall answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint on

25 or before December 6, 2013;
26

2.

Plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to Defendant’s response to the Amended

27 Complaint on or before January 17, 2014;
28
3
Revised Stipulation Regarding Defendant’s Time To Respond To Amended Complaint – 3:13-cv-03962-SC

1

3.

Defendant shall file a reply, if any, in support of Defendant’s response to the

2 Amended Complaint on or before January 31, 2014; and
3

4.

The parties request that the oral argument on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

4 currently scheduled for November 22, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. before this Court be taken off calendar.
5

Nothing in this Stipulation shall preclude Defendant from raising any and all other defenses

6 in answering, moving to dismiss, or otherwise responding to the Complaint. The e-filing attorney
7 hereby attests that he retains on file all holographic signatures corresponding to any signatures
8 indicated by a conformed signature (/S/) within this e-filed document.
9

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

10
11

DATED: October 29, 2013
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

12
By:

13

/s/ Thomas J. Nolan
Thomas J. Nolan
Attorneys for Defendant

14
15

DATED: October 29, 2013
STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES

16
/s/ Kathryn A. Stebner
Kathryn A. Stebner
Attorneys for Plaintiff

By:

17
18
19

20 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

NO

25

27
28

A

H

ER

LI

RT

26

Samuel Conti
United States District Judge
onti
amuel C
Judge S

FO

By:

R NIA

S

23
24

RT
U
O

22

10/30/2013
DATED: ______________

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

UNIT
ED

21

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

4
Revised Stipulation Regarding Defendant’s Time To Respond To Amended Complaint – 3:13-cv-03962-SC