Sciortino et al v. Pepsico, Inc.

Filing 144

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 141 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Hearing Date for Motion for Preliminary Approval and Further Case Management Conference filed by Pepsico, Inc. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/21/16. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 9 STACY SCIORTINO et al., 10 11 Plaintiffs, v. 12 PEPSICO, INC., 13 14 Defendant. CASE NO. 14-CV-478-EMC, consolidated for pretrial purposes with Case Nos. 14-713, 141099, 14-1105, 14-1192, 14-1193, 14-1316, 14-2023 PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Case No. 14-CV-00478 1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER Having considered the parties’ Joint Stipulation To Continue Hearing Date For Motion For 3 Preliminary Approval Of Settlement, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS that 4 the hearing date on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval (to be filed on April 21, 2016) and 5 Further Case Management Conference is continued from May 26, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., to June 9, 6 2016, at 1:30 p.m. S 9 April 21, 2016 10 DATED: ______________ FO 13 A H ER LI RT 12 ____________________________________________ . The HonorableChen ward M Edward M. Chen udge Ed States District Court Judge J United NO 11 DERED O OR IT IS S R NIA IT IS SO ORDERED. UNIT ED 8 RT U O 7 S DISTRICT TE C TA N D IS T IC T R OF C 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT Case No. 14-CV-00478

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?