North Star Gas Company v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company et al

Filing 69

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 68 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 60 MOTION to Dismiss. Responses due by 12/5/2016; Replies due by 12/22/2016.. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Holland & Knight LLP

50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

11

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Thomas D. Leland (Pro Hac)
Leah E. Capritta (Pro Hac)
633 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2300
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Charles L. Coleman III (65496)
Tara S. Kaushik (230098)
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NORTH STAR GAS COMPANY d/b/a/ YEP ENERGY

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

NORTH STAR GAS COMPANY d/b/a YEP )
ENERGY, a Texas limited liability company, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
COMPANY, a California corporation,;
)
ALBERT TORRES, an individual; BILL
)
CHEN, an individual; TANISHA
)
ROBINSON, an individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
______________________________________)

Case No.:

15-CV-2575-HSG

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER [RULE 6-2]
Action Filed: June 9, 2015
Hearing Date: January 19, 2016
Hearing Time: 2:00 PM
Place: United States Courthouse
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Floor 19, Courtroom 10

25
26
27
28

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
LEGAL_US_W # 87893164.1

CASE NO.: 15-CV-2575-HSG

1
2
3

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, North Star Gas Company d/b/a YEP Energy by and through its
attorneys Holland & Knight, LLP and Defendants Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Albert
Torres, Bill Chen and Tanisha Robinson by and through their attorneys Paul Hastings, LLP and

4
hereby file their Stipulated Request for an Enlargement of Time to File Opposition and Reply Briefs
5
6

Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and state as follows:
On November 9, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for

7
8

Respondeat Superior and for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. (Dkt. 60.)

9
10

Per Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to this Motion is due by November 23,
2016.

Holland & Knight LLP

50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

11

Per Local Rule 7-3(c), Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss is due

12
seven days from the filing of Plaintiff’s Opposition, and no later than November 30, 2016.
13
Pursuant to the Clerk’s Notice dated November 10, 2016 (Dkt. 62), Defendants have re-

14
15

noticed the Motion to Dismiss for hearing on January 19, 2017. (Dkt. 67.)
Plaintiff and Defendants now file this stipulated request that the due dates for both the

16
17

Opposition and Reply briefs be enlarged as follows:

18
19

That Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss now be due
December 5, 2016; and

20
That Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss now be due December 22,

21
22

2016.

23

Both enlargements are sought in advance of the expiration of either filing deadline.

24

Neither enlargement will change the schedule of case; nor will either change the hearing

25

date of January 19, 2016.

26
27
28

-1STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
LEGAL_US_W # 87893164.1

CASE NO.: 15-CV-2575-HSG

1
2
3

Good cause exists for both enlargements because: (1) neither prejudices any of the parties or
the Court; (2) neither requires resetting the hearing date; (3) both serve to maintain the thirty-five
(35) day notice schedule contemplated by Local Rule 7-2(a); and (4) both grant the Court the same

4
amount of time to review the briefing as is contemplated by that Rule.
5
6
7
8

Further, these jointly requested changes to the briefing schedule better comply with the
Court’s new hearing date and do not seek to change it.
The parties previously sought an extension of time to respond to the Complaint and to file a

9

Brief in Opposition and Reply in regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. That

10

request was granted (Dkts. 21-22.)

Holland & Knight LLP

50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

11

THEREFORE, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), the parties respectfully file this stipulated

12
request that Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss now be due December
13
14

5, 2016; and, that Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss correspondingly now be

15

due December 22, 2016. The declaration of Leah E. Capritta, required by Local Rule 6-2, is filed

16

contemporaneously with this Motion.

17

Respectfully submitted,

18

Dated: November 17, 2016

By: _______/s/ Adam M. Reich_________

19

Adam M. Reich
Counsel for Defendants

20
21
22

Dated: November 17, 2016

By: _____/s/ Leah E. Capritta___________

23

Leah E. Capritta
Counsel for Plaintiff

24
25
26
27
28

-2STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
LEGAL_US_W # 87893164.1

CASE NO.: 15-CV-2575-HSG

ORDER

1
2
3
4

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Case Schedule is
modified as follows:

5

Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is now due December 5,
2016.

6

Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss is now due December 22, 2016.

7
8

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: __________
11/18/2016

Holland & Knight LLP

50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

11

_____________________________________________
The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam,Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
LEGAL_US_W # 87893164.1

CASE NO.: 15-CV-2575-HSG