Machlan v. Procter & Gamble Company et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting 15 Stipulation filed by Procter & Gamble Company. Signed by Judge James Donato on 05/06/2014. (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2014)

Case3:14-cv-01982-JD Document15 Filed05/06/14 Page1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

EMILY JOHNSON HENN (SBN 269482)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94061
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650-632-4800
Email: [e-mail]
SONYA D. WINNER (SBN 200348)
CORTLIN H. LANNIN (SBN 266488)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-591-6091
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

10

Attorneys for Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company

11

[Other Counsel and Parties Appear on Signature Page]

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
15
16
17

DAVID MACHLAN, an individual, on
behalf of himself, the general public, and
those similarly situated,

18
Plaintiff,
19
v.

Civil Case No.: 3:14-cv-01982-JD
ORDER GRANTING
JOINT STIPULATION TO
EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT AND SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE

20
21

PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY;
NEHEMIAH MANUFACTURING
COMPANY; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50,

22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Civil Case No.: 3:14-cv-01982-JD

(Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2, 7-12)

Case3:14-cv-01982-JD Document15 Filed05/06/14 Page2 of 4

1
2
3

The parties, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, respectfully submit the
following stipulation:
1.

On March 21, 2014, plaintiff David Machlan filed his Class Action

4

Complaint (“CAC”) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco.

5

The CAC names The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”) and Nehemiah Manufacturing

6

Company (“Nehemiah”) as defendants.

7

2.

On April 29, 2014, defendants jointly and timely removed the CAC from the

8

Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District

9

Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. See Dkt. No. 1.

10
11
12

3.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(C)(2)(c), defendants must answer or

otherwise respond to the CAC on or before May 6, 2014.
4.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(a), defendants and plaintiff agree that the deadline

13

for defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the CAC shall be extended to Wednesday,

14

June 18, 2014. See Declaration of Emily Johnson Henn.

15

5.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(b) and 6-2, defendants and plaintiff agree that if

16

one or more defendants files a motion to dismiss the CAC, plaintiff’s opposition(s) to any such

17

motion(s) will be due by Friday, July 18, 2014. Defendants’ reply or replies to any such

18

opposition(s) will be due by Friday, August 1, 2014. The parties request these enlargements of

19

time in anticipation that any motion or motions to dismiss will raise issues that require

20

additional time to brief in a thoughtful and focused manner, as this Court’s standing order

21

requires, and because of preexisting deadlines in cases pending before other courts. See

22

Declaration of Emily Johnson Henn. Any motions to dismiss shall be calendared for a hearing

23

date of Wednesday, August 20, 2014.

24
25

6.

This stipulation will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already

fixed by Court order. This stipulation has been promptly filed in accordance with Civil L.R. 5.

26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Civil Case No.: 3:14-cv-01982-JD

1

Case3:14-cv-01982-JD Document15 Filed05/06/14 Page3 of 4

1

DATED: May 6, 2014

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

2
By: /s/ Emily Johnson Henn
Emily Johnson Henn

3
4

Attorneys for Defendant
The Procter & Gamble Company

5
DATED: May 6, 2014
6

DUDNICK DETWILER RIVIN & STIKKER
LLP

7
By: /s/ William C. Wilka
William C. Wilka

8
9

Attorneys for Defendant
Nehemiah Manufacturing Company

10
DATED: May 6, 2014

GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP

11
12

By: /s/ Seth Safier
Seth Safier

13
Attorneys for Plaintiff

VED
APPRO

R NIA

16

UNIT
ED

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

RT
U
O

15

S

14

17
NO

May 6, 2014
DATED: _____________

onato

LI

A

H

19

IS T RIC T

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Civil Case No.: 3:14-cv-01982-JD

2

FO

mes D
___________________________________
Judge Ja
Hon. James Donato E
C
RN
United States District Judge
OF
D

RT

18

Case3:14-cv-01982-JD Document15 Filed05/06/14 Page4 of 4

1
2
3

ATTESTATION
I, Emily Johnson Henn, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 5-1, that
the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.

4
5

DATED: May 6, 2014

By: /s/ Emily Johnson Henn
Emily Johnson Henn

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Civil Case No.: 3:14-cv-01982-JD

3