Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. et al
Filing
52
ORDER granting 51 STIPULATION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE, HEARING DATE, AND CMC. Deadlines reset as to 50 MOTION to Dismiss: Response due by 12/9/2016; Reply due by 1/9/2017; Motion Hearing continued to 2/8/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Case Management Conference continued to 2/28/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco (Case Management Statement due by 2/21/2017). Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/6/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ROSE LAW GROUP
KATHRYN HONECKER (admitted pro hac vice)
AUDRA PETROLLE (admitted pro hac vice)
7144 E Stetson Drive, Suite 300
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
Telephone:
480.505.3936
Email:
khonecker@roselawgroup.com
apetrolle@roselawgroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
P. CRAIG CARDON, Cal. Bar No. 168646
BENJAMIN O. AIGBOBOH, Cal. Bar No. 268531
ERIC J. DIIULIO, Cal. Bar No. 301439
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4109
Telephone:
415.434.9100
Email:
ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
ediiulio@sheppardmullin.com
Attorneys for Defendants
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
17
WILLIAM RUSHING, Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
v.
WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, also d/b/a Williams-Sonoma, and
Williams-Sonoma Home, Pottery Barn, PB
Teen, and PB Dorm, Pottery Barn Kids,
Pottery Barn Baby, and West Elm;
WILLIAMS-SONOMA DTC, INC., a
California corporation; WILLIAMSSONOMA ADVERTISING, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1-30,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
Assigned to the Hon. William H. Orrick
CLASS ACTION
STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND
BRIEFING SCHEDULE, HEARING
DATE, AND CMC AND ORDER
Complaint Filed:
Action Removed:
5th Am. Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:
January 29, 2016
March 23, 2016
October 24, 2016
None Set
Defendants.
27
28
Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and [Proposed] Order
1
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2
Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-1(b) and 6.2, Plaintiff William
3
Rushing (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Williams-Sonoma, Inc., Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc., and
4
Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their respective
5
counsel, hereby respectfully stipulate and jointly request that the Court extend the briefing and
6
hearing schedule for Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Strike
7
Portions of, Fifth Amended Complaint (“Motions”) (Doc. No. 50) and continue the Case
8
Management Conference as currently set forth in the Stipulated Request and Order: (1) Extending
9
Deadline to Respond to Fourth Amended Complaint; (2) Setting Deadline to Respond to Proposed
10
Fifth Am. Complaint; (3) Setting Briefing Schedule for Anticipated Motion to Dismiss; and (4)
11
Continuing Nov. 8, 2016 CMC (Doc. No. 48).
12
13
14
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint (Dkt. 43) on
September 14, 2016;
15
WHEREAS, Plaintiff intended to and did file his Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
16
(Dkt. 49) on October 24, 2016, which added additional damages claims under the Consumer Legal
17
Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1782(b).
18
WHEREAS, because the parties’ agreed that Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint would
19
render moot any response to the Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Defendants, the
20
parties stipulated and requested that the Court extend Defendants’ deadline to respond to the
21
Fourth Amended Complaint until after Plaintiff’s anticipated filing of his Fifth Amended
22
Complaint;
23
WHEREAS, in the parties’ stipulation and request to the Court, they also stipulated to a
24
briefing schedule (set forth below) for Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss and to continue
25
the Case Management Conference;
26
27
28
Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and Order
-1-
1
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2016, the Court scheduled the hearing on Defendants’ motion
2
to dismiss for January 11, 2017 at 2 p.m. and the initial Case Management Conference in this
3
matter for February 7, 2017 (Doc. 48).
4
5
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an extension of three additional days to file
Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ Motions.
6
WHEREAS, at the time Plaintiff agreed to the prior schedule, he was aware that
7
Defendants would be filing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), but was unaware the
8
they would also be filing a motion to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). In light of the holiday
9
season and work devoted to a motion for class certification Plaintiffs’ counsel filed on November
10
28, 2016, in an unrelated action, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks a modest extension of time to thoroughly
11
address each of the issues raised in Defendants’ Motions.
12
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants have met and conferred and agree that Plaintiff’s
13
deadline to respond to Defendants’ Motions should be extended three days to Friday, December 9,
14
2016, and that Defendants’ deadline to file a reply in support of their Motions should be extended
15
to January 9, 2017. These extensions will not have a significant effect on the overall schedule for
16
this case and would be in the parties’ best interests and in the interest of judicial economy because
17
they will allow the parties to adequately address each of the issues raised in Defendants’ Motions.
18
19
20
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a)(2), all previous time modifications in the case
are as follows:
on March 29, 2016, the parties stipulated to extend Defendants’ time to respond to
21
the First Amended Complaint from March 30, 2016 to April 20, 2016 (Doc. No.
22
16);
23
24
25
26
on May 5, 2016, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the June
21, 2016 Case Management Conference to September 6, 2016 (Doc. No. 20);
on June 23, 2016, the parties stipulated to extend Defendants’ time to respond to
the Third Amended Complaint from June 23, 2016 to June 27, 2016 (Doc. No. 25);
27
28
Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
-2Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and Order
1
on August 4, 2016, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the
2
September 6, 2016 Case Management Conference to September 13, 2016 to
3
accommodate a scheduling conflict by lead counsel for Defendant (Doc. No. 35);
4
on August 23, 2016, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the
5
September 13, 2016 Case Management Conference, and on September 26, 2016 the
6
Court scheduled the Case Management Conference for November 8, 2016; and
7
on October 5, 2016, pursuant to stipulation of the parties and for reasons explained
8
above, the Court extended Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Fourth Amended
9
Complaint, if necessary, to November 14, 2016, and continued the November 8,
10
11
12
13
14
2016 Case Management Conference to February 7, 2017 (Doc. No. 48).
WHEREAS, the instant stipulation and request for an extension will be the first extension
of a filing deadline requested by Plaintiff.
WHEREAS, Kathryn Honecker attests that Eric DiIulio concurs in filing this Stipulated
Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and Case Management Conference.
15
STIPULATION
16
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE and respectfully request
17
that the current briefing and hearing schedule related to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the
18
Alternative, Motion to Strike Portions of, Fifth Amended Complaint (“Motions”) currently set
19
forth in the Stipulated Request and Order: (1) Extending Deadline to Respond to Fourth Amended
20
Complaint; (2) Setting Deadline to Respond to Proposed Fifth Am. Complaint; (3) Setting
21
Briefing Schedule for Anticipated Motion to Dismiss; and (4) Continuing Nov. 8, 2016 CMC
22
(Doc. No. 48) be amended as follows:
23
Case Event
48)
24
25
26
27
Current Dates (Doc. No. Proposed Dates
Plaintiff’s deadline to file opposition to December 6, 2016
December 9, 2016
Defendants’ Motions
Defendants’ deadline to file reply in December 20, 2016
January 9, 2017
support of their Motions
28
Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
-3Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and Order
1
Hearing on Defendants’ Motions
January 11, 2017
February 8, 2017 or
the next available date
2
3
4
Case Management Conference and all February 7, 2017
February 28, 2017 or
related deadlines
the next available date
5
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
6
7
8
Dated: December 5, 2016
9
ROSE LAW GROUP, PC
By
10
/s/ Kathryn Honecker
Kathryn Honecker (admitted pro hac vice)
Audra Petrolle (admitted pro hac vice)
11
-and-
12
George Richard Baker, Cal. Bar No. 224003
BAKER LAW, PC
436 N. Stanley Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90036
Telephone:
323.452.9685
Email:
richard@bakerlawpc.com
13
14
15
16
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
17
18
19
Dated: December 5, 2016
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
20
By
21
22
23
/s/ Eric J. DiIulio
P. Craig Cardon
Benjamin O. Aigboboh
Eric J. DiIulio
Attorneys for Defendants
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
-4Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and Order
ORDER
1
2
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, as clarified below:
3
The Court grants the proposed extensions. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss
4
is continued until February 8, 2017 at 2 p.m. and the Case Management Conference is continued
5
until February 28, 2017 at 2 p.m.
6
7
8
9
DATED: December 6, 2016
The Honorable William H. Orrick
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO
-5Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and Order
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?