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)
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?