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)

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