Myers v. BMW of North America, LLC et al

Filing 26

STIPULATION AND ORDER Resetting Deadlines as to 21 MOTION to Dismiss and 23 MOTION to Dismiss. Responses due by 8/18/2016. Replies due by 9/1/2016. Motion Hearing set for 9/21/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 07/26/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2016)

Download PDF
1 Robert L. Starr, Bar No. 183052 robert@starrlaw.com 2 THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC 23901 Calabasas Road, #2072 3 Calabasas, California 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 4 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 5 Stephen M. Harris, Bar No. 110626 stephen@smh-legal.com 6 THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN M. HARRIS, APC 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500 7 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone: (818) 924-3103 8 Facsimile: (818) 924-3079 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kieva Myers, individually, and on behalf of a class 10 of similarly situated individuals 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 KIEVA MYERS, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated 15 individuals, Plaintiff, 16 17 v. 18 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, , BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE 19 AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, 20 21 22 23 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 3:16-CV-00412-WHO Hon. William H. Orrick AGREED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION, STIPULATION AND ORDER, CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS, ETC. OF DEFENDANTS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC AND BAVERISCHE MOTOREN WERKKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT [Civil L.R. 7-11] 24 25 Plaintiff Kieva Myers (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this agreed 26 administrative motion to continue the August 31st hearing on Defendants motions to 27 28 -1- 1 dismiss and to alter the previous briefing schedule in connection with said motions. 2 This motion is based on the stipulation contained herein and upon any such other 3 matters that his Court deems appropriate. 4 5 Plaintiff and Defendants BMW of North America LLC and Baverische 6 Motoren Werkke Aktiengesellschaft (“BMW” or “Defendants”), by and through 7 their respective undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as 8 follows pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule (“Civil Local 9 Rule”) 7-11(a): 10 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on April 12, 2016 [Dkt. 11 18]; 12 WHEREAS, Defendants filed two separate motions to dismiss directed to the 13 First Amended Complaint on July 20, 2016 [Dkt.’s 21-23]; 14 WHEREAS, Plaintiff needs additional time to prepare the opposition to the 15 two motions; 16 WHEREAS, BMW is agreeable to continuing the hearing and revising the 17 briefing schedule; 18 WHEREAS, the parties agreed that the hearing of the motion is hereby 19 continued to September 22, 2016, during the week counsel for BMW represented 20 he is available for the hearing; 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the hearing of the 22 motions to dismiss, presently scheduled for August 31, 2016, is continued to 23 September 22, 2016, and Plaintiff shall file her opposing papers no later than 24 August 18, 2016, while BMW shall file the reply papers no later than September 1, 25 2016. 26 27 28 -2- 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED 2 DATED: July 25, 2016 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 3 By: 4 5 6 7 8 DATED: July 25, 2016 9 10 THE LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HARRIS, P.C. By: 11 /s/ Eric Y. Kizirian Eric Y. Kizirian Attorneys for Defendant BMW of North America, LLC /s/ Stephen M. Harris Attorney for Plaintiff Kieva Myers 12 13 14 Civil L.R. 5-1(i) And General Order 45 Certification The filing attorney hereby certifies that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained 15 from each of the other signatories, in full accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), and N.D. Cal. Gen. 16 Order 45, Section X(B). ORDER 17 18 19 20 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION , IT IS SO ORDERED. July 26, 2016 DATED: ____________________ ____________________________ HON. WILLIAM H. ORRICK JUDGE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?