Digby Adler Group LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Filing 62

STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Fourth Amended Complaint and Continuing Case Management Conference. Case Management Statement due by 3/14/2016. Further Case Management Conference set for 3/21/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/11/2016. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2016)

1 Troy M. Yoshino, Bar No. 197850
[e-mail]
2 Eric J. Knapp, Bar No. 214352
[e-mail]
3 Steven E. Swaney, Bar No. 221437
[e-mail]
4 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP
Attorneys at Law
5 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94104
6 Telephone:
415.989.5900
Facsimile:
415.989.0932
7
Attorneys for Defendant
8 MERCEDES-BENZ USA., LLC
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13
14 DIGBY ADLER GROUP, LLC, dba
BANDAGO LLC, and BENJAMIN ROBLES,
15 an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
16
Plaintiffs,
17
v.
18
MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC,
19
Defendant.
20

Case No. 3:14-cv-02349 TEH
STIPULATION EXTENDING
MERCEDES-BENZ USA’S TIME TO
RESPOND TO FOURTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
DECLARATION OF TROY YOSHINO IN
SUPPORT

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CARROLL, BURDICK &
MCDONOUGH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

CBM-MERCEDES\SF672029-1

Case No. 3:14-cv-02349 TEH
STIPULATION EXTENDING MBUSA’S TIME TO RESPOND TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

By and through their attorneys of record, plaintiffs Digby Adler Group LLC and Benjamin

2 Robles (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and defendant
3 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“MBUSA”) stipulate and agree as follows:
4

1.

On April 14, 2014, Plaintiff Digby Adler filed this putative class action in San

5 Francisco County Superior Court. MBUSA was served with the summons and complaint on April
6 21, 2014. On May 21, 2014, MBUSA removed the case from San Francisco County Superior
7 Court to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a)(1) and
8 1331(d)(2)(A).
9

2.

On April 28, 2015, Plaintiff Digby Adler filed a Third Amended Complaint

10 (“TAC”) [Dkt. 41]. On May 26, 2015, MBUSA filed a motion to dismiss the TAC [Dkt. 46].
11 Plaintiffs filed a response on June 16, 2015 [Dkt. 50]. On September 1, 2015, the Court ruled on
12 MBUSA’s motion to dismiss the TAC, granting the motion in part and dismissing it in part [Dkt.
13 53].
14

3.

On September 15, 2015, the Court granted the Parties’ request to extend MBUSA’s

15 deadline to file its answer to the TAC until December 14, 2015 [Dkt. 56].
16

4.

On December 11, 2015, the Parties filed a stipulation permitting Plaintiffs to file a

17 Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and requesting an extension of MBUSA’s time to respond
18 until 30 days after service of the FAC [Dkt. 58]. Plaintiffs filed and served the FAC on December
19 14, 2015 [Dkt. 59].
20

5.

On December 15, 2015, the Court granted the Parties’ request to extend MBUSA’s

21 deadline to file its answer to the FAC until January 13, 2016 [Dkt. 60].
22

6.

The parties continue to make progress in resolving this case, and believe that it

23 would conserve resources and enhance judicial efficiency to devote their attention to these efforts
24 in the immediate future instead of preparing adversarial filings. Accordingly, counsel for the
25 Parties have met and conferred and agree that MBUSA shall have until March 14, 2016 to file its
26 response to the FAC.
27

7.

A Case Management Conference is scheduled in this case for January 25, 2016.

28 For the reasons stated above, the Parties agree that the Case Management Conference should be
CARROLL, BURDICK &
MCDONOUGH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

CBM-MERCEDES\SF672029-1

Case No. 3:14-cv-02349 TEH
-1STIPULATION EXTENDING MBUSA’S TIME TO RESPOND TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 continued until March 21, 2016.
2

8.

There are no other scheduled matters in this case. The requested time modification

3 would have no effect on the schedule for the case other than as described herein.
4

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

5 Dated: January 7, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

6

CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP

7
8

By

9
10

/s/ Troy Yoshino
Troy M. Yoshino
Attorneys for Defendant
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

11
12 Dated: January 7, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

13

THE VEEN FIRM, P.C.
CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP

14
15

By

16
17
18

/s/ Dan Gildor
Dan L. Gildor
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class and
Subclasses

19
20

L.R. 5-1(i)(3) Certification
21 Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of the document attests that concurrence in the filing of
the document has been obtained from each of the other Signatories
22
23
24

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

25
26
01/11/2016
Dated: ______________
27
28
CARROLL, BURDICK &
MCDONOUGH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

CBM-MERCEDES\SF672029-1

By:___________________________
Thelton E. Henderson
United States District Judge

Case No. 3:14-cv-02349 TEH
-2DECLARATION OF TROY YOSHINO ISO STIPULATION EXTENDING
MBUSA’S TIME TO RESPOND TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT