Ambrosia et al v. Cogent Communications, Inc.
Filing
41
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND COLLECTIVE ACTION BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE. Case Management Conference set for 10/15/2015 at 01:30 PM and Motion Hearing set for 10/15/2015 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg.Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/12/15. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2015)
11
100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
THOMAS E. DUCKWORTH (SBN 152369)
1 (tom@dplolaw.com)
MONIQUE OLIVIER (SBN 190385)
2 (monique@dplolaw.com)
DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
3 100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, California 94104
4 Telephone: (415) 433-0333
Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
5
TODD SLOBIN (Pro Hac Vice)
6 SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
7
Houston, Texas 77046
8 Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed Class
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
16
17
JOAN AMBROSIO, JANE LACAP, KEITH
SWICK, BILL CHAN,COSMIN BANU,
SHAHID RAHMATULLAH, DANA
ROGERS, TONY TRINH, CHRISTIAN
HALLORAN, NOVELETT WITT, ART
BAIMKIN, ANGELITO MUYOT JR.,
JASON RUIZ, KESHAV KAMATH, PEET
SAPSIN, and ALICIA ERBY
18
19
CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION
Case No 3:14-cv-02182-RS
Plaintiffs,
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION AND
COLLECTIVE ACTION BRIEFING
AND HEARING SCHEDULE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
v.
20
21
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
22
Defendant.
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CLASS CERT SCHEDULE
Case No. 14-02182-RS
STIPULATION
1
Plaintiffs Joan Ambrosio et al. (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Cogent Communications,
2
3 Inc. (“Defendant”)(collectively, the “Parties”), through their counsel, hereby stipulate and agree
4 that:
5
WHEREAS on May 28, 2015 this Court issued an order setting forth a new class
6 certification and hearing schedule (Dkt. 39) as follows:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class/Collective Certification
August 14, 2015
Defendant’s Opposition
9
September 4, 2015
Plaintiffs’ Reply
10
September 24, 2015, 1:30 pm
Hearing/Case Management Conference
11
100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
July 24, 2015
8
DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
7
WHEREAS the parties just discovered that the stipulation leading to that order contained
12 an erroneous schedule that did not reflect the agreement of the parties;
13
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate,
14 subject to the approval of the Court, to the following (slightly modified) schedule:
15
July 24, 2015
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class/Collective Certification
16
August 28, 2015
Defendant’s Opposition
17
September 25, 2015
Plaintiffs’ Reply
18
October 15, 2015, 1:30 pm
Hearing/Case Management Conference
19
20 Dated: June 12, 2015
By: /s/ Monique Olivier
Monique Olivier
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
21
22
23 Dated: June 12, 2015
24
25
DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
By: /s/ Tamara I. Devitt*
Tamara I. Devitt
Attorneys for Defendant
26
*I, Monique Olivier, attest that Tamara Devitt has concurred in the filing of this document.
27 (L.R. 5-1(i).)
28
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CLASS CERT SCHEDULE
Case No. 14-02182-RS
PROPOSED] ORDER
1
2
3 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, the following revised schedule for Plaintiffs’ Class and
Collective Certification Motion is:
4
5
July 24, 2015
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class/Collective Certification
6
August 28, 2015
Defendant’s Opposition
7
September 25, 2015
Plaintiffs’ Reply
8
October 15, 2015, 1:30 pm
Hearing/Case Management Conference
10
11
100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated: 6/12/15
_______________________________
Richard Seeborg, Judge
United States District Court
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CLASS CERT SCHEDULE
Case No. 14-02182-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?