Galen v. Redfin Corporation

Filing 16

Order by Hon. Thelton E. Henderson granting 15 Stipulation to Continue Rule 26(f) Deadlines. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2015)

Download PDF
1 5 Laura L. Ho (SBN 173179) lho@gbdhlegal.com James Kan (SBN 240749) jkan@gbdhlegal.com GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 763-9800 Fax: (510) 835-1417 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 11 Ronald D. Arena (SBN 218421) rarena@arenahoffman.com Michael Hoffman (SBN 162496) mhoffman@arenahoffman.com ARENA HOFFMAN LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 433-1414 Fax: (415) 520-0446 12 Attorneys for Defendant 2 3 4 8 9 10 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 17 SCOTT GALEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 18 19 vs. 20 Case No.: 3:14-cv-05229 TEH STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF FRCP RULE 26(F) DEADLINES PENDING DETERMINATION OF RELATED CASE STATUS REDFIN CORPORATION, Hon. Thelton E. Henderson 21 22 Defendant. Trial: None Set 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF FRCP RULE 26(F) DEADLINES PENDING DETERMINATION OF RELATED CASE STATUS - CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05229 TEH 565907 2 1 Pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff and Defendant hereby stipulate as follows: 2 WHEREAS, on February 24, 2015, the Parties stipulated that Cruz v. Redfin Corporation, Case 3 No. 4:14-cv-05234-YGR (N.D. Cal.) was related to this action and should be reassigned to this Court 4 (ECF No. 14); 5 WHEREAS on February 24 2015, Plaintiff filed an unopposed administrative motion 6 requesting a determination as to whether this action and the Cruz action were related (ECF No. 13) 7 8 9 WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) requires the Parties to file a Rule 26(f) report and to exchange initial disclosures by February 26, 2015; WHEREAS, the Parties agree that a more effective and comprehensive discovery plan would 10 be possible after the Court rules on the pending administrative motion, particularly in the event the 11 Court were to deem the cases related; 12 13 14 WHEREAS, the Parties agree to continue their respective deadlines for exchanging initial disclosures until the resolution of the pending administrative motion; It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the Parties, subject to Court approval, that the deadlines 15 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) shall be continued by no less than fourteen (14) days 16 after the Court rules on the pending administrative motion regarding related case status (ECF No. 13). 17 Dated: February 26, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 18 GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 19 21 /s/ James Kan Laura L. Ho James Kan 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 23 24 25 Dated: February 26, 2015 ARENA HOFFMAN 26 /s/ Ronald D. Arena Ronald D. Arena Michael Hoffman 27 Attorneys for Defendant 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF FRCP RULE 26(F) DEADLINES PENDING DETERMINATION OF RELATED CASE STATUS - CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05229 TEH 565907 2 1 2 3 ATTESTATION Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. 4 5 Dated: February 26, 2015 6 By: /s/ James Kan GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 UNIT ED 11 15 FO LI ER H 14 _________________________________ Hon. Thelton E. Henderson nderson e lton E. H dge The United States District Court Ju Northern District of California RT 13 Dated: 02/26/15 NO 12 R NIA Pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties, IT IS SO ORDERED. A 10 S 9 RT U O S DISTRICT TE C [PROPOSED] ORDER TA 8 N F D IS T IC T O R C 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF FRCP RULE 26(F) DEADLINES PENDING DETERMINATION OF RELATED CASE STATUS - CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05229 TEH 565907 2

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?