Barraza v. Cricket Wireless, LLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE PARTIES STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION re 43 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed by Nikole Henson, Flor Barraza, 41 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 40 MOTION to Stay Obligations Under the Co urt's Scheduling Orders Pending Resolution of Defendants' Pending Motion to Compel Arbitration, 34 MOTION to Compel Arbitration MOTION to filed by Flor Barraza Case Management Statement due by 10/22/2015. Replies due by 10/16/2015. Responses due by 10/5/2015. Case Management Conference set for 10/29/2015 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 10/29/2015 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 8/28/15. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 11 FLOR BARRAZA and NIKOLE HENSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiffs, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 13 No. C 15-02471 WHA v. 14 CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC, and LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION / In plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ administrative motion, plaintiffs explained that the 18 parties agreed to an extension of deadlines on the briefing on defendants’ pending motion to 19 compel arbitration in order to allow some discovery (by agreement or by motion) before 20 plaintiffs must file their response. Good cause shown, the deadlines shall be EXTENDED as 21 follows: Plaintiffs’ opposition brief will be due OCTOBER 5, defendants’ reply brief will be due 22 OCTOBER 16, and the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration will be continued to 23 OCTOBER 29 AT 8:00 A.M. The case management conference currently scheduled for September 24 24 is CONTINUED to OCTOBER 29 AT 8:00 A.M. All other deadlines remain in place. 25 26 27 28 1 The Court’s ruling on the request for a stay is forthcoming. The parties are warned that 2 they will not be permitted to rely on this extension as the basis for future extensions, and the 3 Court expects plaintiffs’ opposition to be of a quality and thoroughness that reflects the extra 4 time granted. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: August 28, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?