United Energy Trading, LLC v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. et al

Filing 91

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 90 to Extend Time to Respond to Second Amended Complaint and for an Enlargement of Time to File Opposition and Reply Briefs if a Motion to Dismiss is Filed. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/24/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

DENNIS S. ELLIS (SB# 178196)
[e-mail]
ADAM M. REICH (SB# 274235)
[e-mail]
COURTNEY DETHOMAS (SB# 294591)
[e-mail]
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
515 South Flower Street
Twenty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10

ARNOLDO BARBA (SB#198131)
[e-mail]
LIM, RUGER & KIM, LLP
1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11
12
13

Attorneys for Defendants
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY; ALBERT
TORRES; BILL CHEN; and TANISHA ROBINSON

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17
18
UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC,

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-2383-RS

19
Plaintiff,
20
vs.
21
22
23

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY, a California corporation;
ALBERT TORRES, an individual; BILL
CHEN, an individual; TANISHA
ROBINSON, an individual,

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FOR AN
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS IF A
MOTION TO DISMISS IS FILED,
PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULES 61(b), 6-2, 7-12

24
Defendants.
Action Filed: May 28, 2015
2nd Am. Compl. Filed: May 13, 2016
Current Response Date: May 27, 2016
New Response Date: June 10, 2016

25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:15-CV-2383-RS

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME

2

The Stipulated Request to Extend Time to Respond to Second Amended Complaint and

3

for an Enlargement of Time to File Opposition and Reply Briefs if a Motion to Dismiss is Filed,

4

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12 (“Stipulated Request”), agreed to by plaintiff

5

United Energy Trading, LLC (“UET”) and defendants Pacific Gas and Electric Company

6

(“PG&E”), Albert Torres, Bill Chen and Tanisha Robinson (collectively, the “Individual

7

Defendants,” and together with PG&E, the “Defendants”), was submitted for Court approval on

8

May 20, 2016. Having considered the Stipulated Request, and all other pleadings and papers on

9

file in this Action, the Court rules as follows:

10
11

WHEREAS, UET filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 13, 2016;

12

WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(a)(3), Defendants’

13

response to the Second Amended Complaint is currently due on May 27, 2016;

14

WHEREAS, counsel for Defendants have had scheduling conflicts with other cases during

15

the time period contemplated by Rule 15(a)(3), including a multi-week Arbitration, and have

16

scheduling conflicts with other cases through the end of May, which require travel outside the

17

country, the collective effect of both being the interference with counsel’s ability to adequately

18

assess the Second Amended Complaint and advise Defendants;

19
20

WHEREAS, all parties have agreed that Defendants shall have until June 10, 2016, to
answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint;

21
22

WHEREAS, this extension of time does not affect any existing dates set forth in the Case
Management Scheduling Order.

23

WHEREAS, if on June 10, 2016, Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss the Second

24

Amended Complaint, then pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, UET’s Opposition to that Motion would

25

be due on June 24, 2016, and Defendants’ Reply in Support of that Motion would be due July 1,

26

2016;

27
28
Case No. 3:15-CV-2383-RS

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME

1

WHEREAS, all parties have agreed that if Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss on June

2

10, 2016 to respond to the Second Amended Complaint, than the standard briefing schedule

3

required by Local Rule 7-3 should be enlarged as follows:

4

Brief

Standard Schedule

Stipulated Enlargement

5

Opposition Brief

June 24, 2016

July 1, 2016

6

Reply Brief

July 1, 2016

July 15, 2016

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

WHEREAS, the stipulated briefing enlargements are sought in advance of the
expiration of any related filing deadline;
WHEREAS, the stipulated briefing enlargements do not affect any existing dates
set forth in the Case Management Scheduling Order;
WHEREAS, the stipulated briefing enlargements maintain the minimum 35 day
notice schedule contemplated by Local Rule 7-2;
WHEREAS, none of the extensions sought by the Stipulated Request prejudice the
parties or the Court;
Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The date for Defendants to answer or otherwise response to UET’s Second

17

Amended Complaint is extended from May 27, 2016 through and including June

18

10, 2016;

19

2. If Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June

20

10, 2016 in response to UET’s Second Amended Complaint, than the following

21

briefing schedule will apply:

22

UET’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is due July 1,

23

2016; and

24

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion Dismiss is due July 15, 2016.

25

SO ORDERED this 24th of May
day

26

, 2016.
By:
The Honorable Richard G. Seeborg
United States District Court Judge

27
28
Case No. 3:15-CV-2383-RS

-2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME