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)

Download PDF
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?