Maria Karla Terraza v. Safeway Inc. et al

Filing 95

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 92 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Administrative Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to AON Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by Maria Karla Terraza. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 5, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ronald S. Kravitz (SBN 129704) Kolin C. Tang (SBN 279834) SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com ktang@sfmslaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Plan [Additional Counsel Listed On Signature Page] 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA KARLA TERRAZA, Individually and On Behalf of the SAFEWAY 401(K) PLAN, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY INC., BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE SAFEWAY INC. n/k/a ALBERTSONS COMPANIES RETIREMENT BENEFITS PLANS COMMITTEE, PETER J. BOCIAN, DAVID F. BOND, MICHAEL J. BOYLAN, ROBERT B. DIMOND, LAURA A. DONALD, DENNIS J. DUNNE, ROBERT L. EDWARDS, BRADLEY S. FOX, BERNARD L. HARDY, RUSSELL M. JACKSON, PEGGY JONES, SUZ-ANN KIRBY, ROBERT LARSON, MELISSA C. PLAISANCE, PAUL ROWAN, ANDREW SCOGGIN, and AON HEWITT INVESTMENT CONSULTING, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:16-cv-03994-JST STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO AON HEWITT INVESTMENT CONSULTING, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 25 26 27 28 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN OPP. TO MOTION TO DISMISS Case No: 3:16-cv-03994 JST 1 Plaintiff, Maria Karla Terraza (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of the Safeway 2 401(k) Plan, and Defendant, Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc. (“Aon”), by and through 3 their respective counsel, hereby consent and stipulate as follows: 4 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint on July 14, 2016 [Dkt. No. 1]; 5 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on March 6 31, 2017 [Dkt. No. 72], adding Aon as a defendant; 7 WHEREAS, Aon filed its Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint on June 22, 8 2017 [Dkt. No. 83] (“Motion to Dismiss”), with a hearing date noticed for August 24, 2017, at 9 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar; 10 WHEREAS, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation on July 5, 2017 and the Court’s Order 11 that same day, Plaintiff’s response to Aon’s Motion to Dismiss was extended from July 6, 2017 12 to August 3, 2017; Aon’s reply was extended to August 24, 2017; and the hearing date was 13 continued to September 12, 2017 [Dkt No. 87]; 14 15 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed her Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on August 3, 2017 [Dkt. No. 89]; 16 17 WHEREAS, Aon filed its Reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss on August 24, 2017 [Dkt. No. 90]; 18 WHEREAS, Aon’s Reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss identified that Plaintiff’s 19 Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss had double-counted the expenses for some of the Plan’s 20 investment options; 21 WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel seek to briefly acknowledge that oversight, apologize to 22 the Court, and clarify the relevant argument in Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss; 23 and 24 25 26 WHEREAS, counsel for Aon agreed that Aon would not oppose Plaintiff’s request to file a Sur-Reply provided that Plaintiff limits the Sur-Reply to those points; IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 27 28 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN OPP. TO MOTION TO DISMISS -3Case No: 3:16-cv-03994 JST 1 2 3 4 5 On or before September 5, 2017, Plaintiff may file a short Sur-Reply in the form of the attached Exhibit A to briefly address the double-counting error. In accordance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i), the filer of this document hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory hereto. IT IS SO STIPULATED: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dated: September 5, 2017 Respectfully submitted, SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP /s/Kolin C. Tang Ronald S. Kravitz Kolin C. Tang Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com ktang@sfmslaw.com James E. Miller Laurie Rubinow Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com Nathan Zipperian Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP 1625 N. Commerce Pkwy, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com 26 27 28 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN OPP. TO MOTION TO DISMISS -4Case No: 3:16-cv-03994 JST 1 Monique Olivier DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-0333 Facsimile: (415) 449-6556 Email: monique@dplolaw.com 2 3 4 5 Sahag Majarian Law Offices of Sahag Majarian 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 Email: sahagii@aol.com 6 7 8 9 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Plan Dated: September 5, 2017 12 13 14 15 16 /s/ Randall W. Edwards Brian Boyle Randall W. Edwards O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: bboyle@omm.com redwards@omm.com Attorneys for Defendant, Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc. 17 18 19 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 20 21 22 September 5 Dated: ____________, 2017 _________________________ The Honorable Jon S. Tigar, J. 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Case No: 3:16-cv-03994 JST

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?