Papasan et al v. Dometic Corporation et al

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 40 Stipulation Regarding Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Peter A. Wald (Bar No. 85705)
Marcy C. Priedeman (Bar No. 258505)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Robert C. Collins III (Illinois Bar No. 6304674,
appearance pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
DOMETIC CORPORATION

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16
17
18

CATHERINE PAPASAN, NELSON
GOEHLE, ANDREW YOUNG, JIMMY
BYERS, CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON,
RICHARD AND LEAH VOLLBERG, and
all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

19
20
21
22

vs.

Case No. 3:16-cv-02117-HSG
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

DOMETIC CORPORATION,
Defendant.

23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02117-HSG

1

Plaintiffs Catherine Papasan, Nelson Goehle, Andrew Young, Jimmy Byers, Christopher

2

Johnston, and Richard and Leah Vollberg (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and defendant Dometic

3

Corporation (“Defendant”), through their respective attorneys of record herein and without

4

waiving any rights, claims, or defenses they have in this action, enter into this stipulation, with

5

reference to the following circumstances:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint on July 8, 2016,
via the Court’s ECF system;
WHEREAS, the parties have not otherwise stipulated to any extension of time to answer
or otherwise respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint;
WHEREAS, Defendant’s response to the First Amended Class Action Complaint is
currently due July 22, 2016;
WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have conferred and have agreed to extend the time

13

for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint by

14

twenty-eight (28) days;

15
16
17

WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have also conferred and agreed to a briefing schedule
for if Defendant files a motion to dismiss;
WHEREAS, in light of the fact that the Court granted Defendant five (5) additional pages

18

for its memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint filed on April 21, 2016,

19

Defendant seeks five (5) additional pages, for a total of thirty (30) pages, for its memorandum in

20

support of a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint, and Plaintiffs

21

take no position on this request except that if it is granted, that it be reciprocal to grant Plaintiffs

22

five (5) additional pages for their response to Defendant’s motion; and

23

WHEREAS, this twenty-eight (28) day extension to respond to Plaintiffs’ First Amended

24

Class Action Complaint, these five (5) page extensions, and the extended motion to dismiss

25

briefing schedule will not affect the Initial Case Management Conference, currently scheduled

26

for August 2, 2016.

27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties, by
and through their counsel of record, as follows:
1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02117-HSG

1

1.

Defendant shall file a response to the First Amended Class Action Complaint by

2

August 19, 2016 and shall be entitled to file a memorandum of no more than

3

thirty (30) pages.

4

2.

If Defendant’s response to the First Amended Class Action Complaint is a motion

5

to dismiss, and if Plaintiffs do not seek leave to file a second amended complaint

6

pursuant to Rule 15 in response to such motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall file

7

their opposition to the motion to dismiss by September 20, 2016.

8

3.

9

file a second amended complaint, Defendant shall file any reply brief by October

10
11
12

If Plaintiffs file an opposition to the motion to dismiss and do not seek leave to

11, 2016.
4.

This extension does not affect any of the dates scheduled by the Court pursuant to
the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order, entered on April 29, 2016.

13

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

14

Dated: July 12, 2016

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Peter A. Wald
Marcy C. Priedeman
Robert C. Collins III (Illinois Bar No. 6304674,
appearance pro hac vice)
By: /s/ Peter A. Wald
505 Montgomery St., Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

26
Attorneys for Defendant Dometic Corporation
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02117-HSG

1

Dated: July 12, 2016

2
3

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
Thomas E. Loeser
Ashley A. Bede (pro hac vice)

4
By: /s/ Steve W. Berman

5

1918 Eight Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 998101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Jeff D. Friedman
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

11
12
13
14
15

LAW OFFICES OF TERRENCE A. BEARD
Terrence A. Beard
525 Marina Blvd.
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

16
17
18
19
20

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

21
22
23

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), counsel for Defendants has obtained the
concurrence of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Steve W. Berman, in the filing of this stipulation.

24
25

Dated: July 12, 2016

/s/

Peter A. Wald

26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02117-HSG

1

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated: July 18, 2016
The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02117-HSG