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)
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?