Raney v. Twitter, Inc.

Filing 27

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO STAY by Hon. William Alsup granting 26 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 COOLEY LLP MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) (rhodesmg@cooley.com) WHITTY SOMVICHIAN (194463) (wsomvichian@cooley.com) KYLE C. WONG (224021) (kwong@cooley.com) DEVON HANLEY COOK (262626) (dhanleycook@cooley.com) 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 Attorneys for Defendant TWITTER, Inc. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 WILFORD RANEY, as an individual, and on behalf of the others similarly situated, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 TWITTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-04191-WHA STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO STAY (CIVIL L.R. 6-1(A), (B); 6-2) 16 Defendant. 17 Judge: Date: Hon. William H. Alsup Not yet set 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COOLEY LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 122358093 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT 3:15-CV-04191-WHA 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(a), 6-1(b), and 6-2, plaintiff Wilford Raney (“Plaintiff”) 2 and defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) (collectively “the Parties”), by and through their 3 respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows: 4 5 6 7 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against Twitter on or about September 14, 2015; WHERAS, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) on September 30, 2015; 8 WHEREAS, Twitter’s deadline to respond to the Complaint is October 19, 2015; 9 WHEREAS, under Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), the Parties may stipulate in writing, without a 10 Court order, to extend the time within which to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, 11 provided the change will not alter any deadline already fixed by Court order; 12 WHEREAS, under Civil Local Rule 6-1(b), a Court order is required for any enlargement 13 of time that alters a deadline that involves papers required to be filed with the Court (other than 14 an initial response to the complaint); 15 WHEREAS, the parties may file a stipulation requesting an order that would extend time 16 frames set in the Federal Rules, accompanied by a declaration complying with Civil Local Rule 17 6-2, and such a declaration is filed herewith; 18 19 WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to stipulate under Civil Local Rule 6-1(a) and (b) to a filing and briefing schedule for Twitter’s response to the FAC as set forth below; 20 WHEREAS, the Parties have stipulated under Civil Local Rule 6-1(b) to a filing and 21 briefing schedule for Twitter’s anticipated motion to stay this action (“Motion to Stay”) as set 22 forth below; 23 WHEREAS, extending the deadline for any subsequent briefing necessitated by Twitter’s 24 response to the Complaint and Motion to Stay, as set forth below, will allow for a more complete 25 and orderly presentation of the complex legal issues the Court will need to resolve in both 26 motions (see Declaration of Whitty Somvichian (“Somvichian Decl.”) ¶ 3, filed concurrently 27 herewith); 28 WHEREAS, extending the deadlines for any subsequent briefing necessitated by Twitter’s COOLEY LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 122358093 1. STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT 3:15-CV-04191-WHA 1 response to the Complaint or Motion to Stay will help accommodate attorneys’ schedules 2 for the upcoming holidays. 3 WHEREAS, no prior time modifications have been sought in this case (id. ¶ 6); 4 WHEREAS, this modification would not affect the case schedule as none has been 5 6 7 entered (id. ¶ 7). NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree to extend the following deadlines: 8 1. November 9, 2015: 9 Twitter’s deadline to respond to the FAC and file its anticipated Motion to Stay; 10 2. December 9, 2015: Plaintiff’s Oppositions due; 11 3. January 9, 2015: Twitter’s Replies due. 12 13 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 14 15 Dated: October 8, 2015 COOLEY LLP s/ Whitty Somvichian Whitty Somvichian (194463) Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, Inc. 16 17 18 19 Dated: October 8, 2015 s/ Alexander T.H. Nguyen Alexander T.H. Nguyen Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 21 22 EDELSON PC Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3)) regarding signatures, Whitty Somvichian hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. 23 PROPOSED ORDER 24 25 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 DATED: October 13, 2015. The Honorable William H. Alsup United States District Judge 28 COOLEY LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 122358093 2. STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT 3:15-CV-04191-WHA

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?