Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting 19 STIPULATION. Case Management Conference continued to 9/6/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 8/30/2016. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/05/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2016)

1 BAKER LAW, PC
George Richard Baker, Cal. Bar No. 224003
2 436 N. Stanley Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90036
3
Telephone: [phone]
4 [e-mail]
5 ROSE LAW GROUP, PC
Kathryn Honecker (pro hac vice)
6 Lauren Nageotte (pro hac vice)
7144 E Stetson Drive, Suite 300
7
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
8 Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
9 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
10
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14 WILLIAM RUSHING, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,
15
16

Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
Assigned to the Hon. William H. Orrick

Plaintiff,
v.

CLASS ACTION

17
WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a Delaware
18 corporation, also d/b/a Williams-Sonoma And
Williams-Sonoma
Home;
WILLIAMS19 SONOMA DTC, INC., a California
WILLIAMS-SONOMA
20 corporation;
ADVERTISING,
INC.,
a
California
WILLIAMS-SONOMA
21 corporation;
STORES, INC., a California corporation;
22 POTTERY BARN, INC., a California
corporation; POTTERY BARN KIDS, INC., a
23
California corporation, also d/b/a Pottery Barn
24 Baby; POTTERY BARN TEEN, INC., a
California corporation also d/b/a PB Teen and
25 PB Dorm; WEST ELM, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1-30,
26
Defendants.
27
28

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AND
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO
FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT;
(2) SETTING DEFENDANTS’
DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;
(3) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR DEFENDANTS’ ANTICIPATED
MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND
(4) CONTINUING JUNE 21, 2016 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AND ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT, SETTING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING CMC

1

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b)(4) and Civil Local Rules 6-

2 1(a), 6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12, 10-1, and 16-2(e), Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively, the “Parties”),
3 by and through their respective counsel, hereby respectfully stipulate and jointly request that the
4 Court grant Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), set the time for
5 Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), set a briefing
6 schedule for Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss the TAC, and continue the Case
7 Management Conference currently set for June 21, 2016 (“CMC”) until after ruling on
8 Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.
9
10

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on January 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this matter in the

11 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco.
12

WHEREAS, on March 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in the

13 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco.
14

WHEREAS, on March 25, 2016, Defendants removed this case to federal court pursuant

15 to the 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446 (Doc. 1).
16

WHEREAS, on March 29, 2016, the Parties stipulated to extend Defendants’ deadline to

17 respond to the FAC from March 30, 2016 to April 20, 2016 (Doc. 5). This was the only prior
18 time modification that has been made in this case.
19

WHEREAS, on April 20, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, which is

20 currently set for hearing on June 8, 2016 at 2:00 P.M. in Courtroom 2 (Doc. 12).
21

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2016, the Court issued an Order Setting Initial Case

22 Management Conference in this matter for June 21, 2016 at 2:00 P.M. in Courtroom 2 (Doc. 13).
23

WHEREAS, under the Court’s normal briefing schedule, Plaintiff’s deadline to respond

24 to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is May 4, 2016.
25

WHEREAS, Plaintiff seeks to amend the FAC to clarify and narrow the class definition,

26 address several of the other issues raised in Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and add additional
27
28

-1-

Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND
CHANGING TIME OF HEARING AND CMC

1 claims, including a claim under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the “CLRA”),
2 California Civil Code § 1750, et seq. A copy of the SAC Plaintiff seeks to file is attached hereto
3 as Exhibit A.
4

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that filing of the SAC will render Defendants’ pending

5 motion to dismiss moot.
6

WHEREAS, Plaintiff intends to submit a CLRA notice letter to Defendants on May 4,

7 2016, which notice letter Defendants have agreed to accept by email to Defendants’ counsel. If
8 Plaintiff’s CLRA claim is not resolved within 30 days of May 4, 2016, in accordance with
9 California Civil Code § 1782(b), Plaintiff plans to filed a TAC for the sole purpose of seeking
10 permissible damages for the CLRA claim alleged in the SAC.

For avoidance of doubt,

11 Defendants do not waive their right to pursue any challenges to the SAC or TAC including, but
12 not limited, the addition of any damages claims under the CLRA.
13

WHEREAS, the Parties’ agree that Plaintiff’s TAC would render moot any motion to

14 dismiss the SAC.
15

WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred on April 27, 2016, by telephone and email,

16 and agreed to the terms of this stipulation and [proposed] order and that continuing the Initial
17 Case Management Conference until after the Court has heard and ruled on Defendants’ motion to
18 dismiss the TAC will not, at this early stage, have a significant effect on the overall schedule for
19 this case and would be in the Parties’ best interests and in the interest of judicial economy by
20 allowing them to focus their attention and resources on the issues that will proceed in the
21 litigation.
22

The Parties therefore stipulate to and request that the Court issue the following order:

23

1.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Plaintiff is granted leave to file

24 a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in the form attached as Exhibit A and the SAC is
25 deemed filed as of May 4, 2016.
26
27
28

Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AND ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT, SETTING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING CMC

1

2.

Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is deemed moot and the June 8,

2 2016 hearing is vacated. Plaintiff is relieved with certainty of his obligation to respond to the
3 pending motion to dismiss.
4

3.

Plaintiff shall file a TAC on June 6, 2016.

5

4.

Defendants intend to file a response to the TAC on or before June 8, 2016, but do

6 not waive their right to respond to the TAC within the time provided for by the Federal Rules of
7 Civil Procedure.
8

5.

If Defendants file a motion to dismiss the TAC on June 8, 2016, the following

9 briefing schedule shall apply to that motion:
10



Plaintiffs shall file his opposition on or before June 29, 2016; and

11



Defendants shall file their reply on or before July 13, 2016.

12

6.

If Defendants do not file a response to the TAC on or before June 8, 2016, the

13 parties agree to confer regarding a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss the TAC filed
14 after June 8, 2016.
15

7.

The Initial Case Management Conference, currently set for June 21, 2016, and all

16 related deadlines are continued until at least 30 days after ruling on Defendants’ motion to
17 dismiss the SAC.
18

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

19
20

E-FILING ATTESTATION
By her signature below, counsel for Plaintiffs attest that counsel for all parties whose

21 electronic signatures appear below have concurred in this filing of this Stipulation.
22 Dated: May 4, 2016

ROSE LAW GROUP, PC

23

/s/ Kathryn Honecker
Kathryn Honecker (pro hac vice)
Lauren Nageotte (pro hac vice)
7144 E Stetson Drive, Suite 300
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AND ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT, SETTING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING CMC

1 Dated: May 4, 2016

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

2
/s/ Benjamin O. Aigboboh
Benjamin O. Aigboboh
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.434.3947

3
4
5
6

Attorneys for Defendants

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED as modified below:
1. The hearing date on any motion to dismiss is August 10, 2016 at 2 p.m. If the
parties vary from the schedule set forth in the stipulation, any reply brief shall be filed
at least two weeks prior to the date of the hearing.
2. The continued Case Management Conference is set for September 6, 2016 at 2 p.m.
DATED: May 5, 2016

15
16
17

The Honorable William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AND ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT, SETTING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING CMC