Chaiwong v. Hanlees Fremont, Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 39 Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending Time for Hanlees Fremont, Inc. to Respond to Ally Financial, Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claims, and to Extend Time for Ally's Reply Thereto. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

MARTIN S. PUTNAM, SBN: 160951
LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN PUTNAM
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
Hanlees Fremont, Inc.

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO COURTHOUSE

10
11
12
13

Weerachai Chaiwong, an individual,
Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

Hanlees Fremont, Inc., a California corporation,
dba Hanlees Fremont Hyundai;
Ally Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and
Does 1 through 75, inclusive,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

Case No. 3:16-cv-04074-HSG
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
Extending Time for Hanlees Fremont, Inc. to
Respond to Ally Financial, Inc.’s Notice of
Motion and Motion to Dismiss
Cross-Claims, and to Extend Time for
Ally’s Reply Thereto
[Civil L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12]
Hearing Date: January 26, 2017
Time:
2:00 p.m.
Judge:
Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Courtroom: 10
Action Filed: May 25, 2016
Removed: July 20, 2016

21
22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-12, Defendant Hanlees Fremont,

24

Inc. (“Hanlees”) and Defendant Ally Financial Inc. (“Ally”) (together, "the affected

25

parties”) by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

26
27
28
-1STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time for Hanlees Fremont, Inc. to Respond to Ally
Financial, Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claims, and to Extend Time for Ally’s Reply
Thereto3:16-cv-04074-HSG

1
2
3

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
WHEREAS, Defendant Ally Financial filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to

4

Dismiss the Cross-Claims of Defendant Hanlees Fremont, Inc. (“Motion to Dismiss”) on

5

November 7, 2016;

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

WHEREAS, Hanlees’ response to the Motion to Dismiss is presently due for filing
and service on a stipulated extended date of December 5, 2016, and Ally’s reply to
Hanlees’ response is presently due on a stipulated extended date of December 19, 2016;
WHEREAS, Ally has agreed to extend Hanlees’ time to respond to the Motion to
Dismiss by an additional fourteen (14) days, until December 19, 2016, to allow Hanlees
sufficient time to respond in view of medical restrictions on activities of co-counsel Louis
Liberty, on advice of neurologist Josiah Bartlett Ambrose, M.D. [Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(1)];
WHEREAS, Hanlees has agreed to extend Ally’s time to reply to Hanlees’

15

response to the Motion to Dismiss by an additional sixteen (16) days after the stipulated

16

new due date for Hanlees’ response, until January 7, 2017, to allow Ally sufficient time

17

to reply to Hanlees’ response to the Motion to Dismiss in view of Ally’s counsel’s trial

18

schedule and the intervening holidays [Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(1)];

19

WHEREAS, one previous two-week extension of time for Hanless to respond to

20

the Motion to Dismiss, and a corresponding extension of time for Ally to reply, were

21

stipulated by the affected parties and filed in this docket on November 21, 2016 [Civil

22

L.R. 6-2(a)(2)];

23
24
25
26

WHEREAS, the requested extensions will not have any effect on the current
schedule for the case [Civil L.R. 6-2(a)(3)];
WHEREAS, a Court order is required for the requested extensions, in that they
involve papers required to be filed with the Court [Civil L.R. 6-1(b)];

27
28
-2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time for Hanlees Fremont, Inc. to Respond to Ally
Financial, Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claims, and to Extend Time for Ally’s Reply
Thereto3:16-cv-04074-HSG

1

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED TO, by and between the Parties herein, through

2

their respective attorneys of record, AND THE COURT IS REQUESTED TO ORDER,

3

that Hanlees shall have an additional fourteen (14) day extension, up to and including

4

December 19, 2016, in which to file and serve a response to Ally’s Motion to Dismiss;

5

and Ally shall have (16) days thereafter, up to and including January 7, 2017, in which to

6
7
8

file and serve a reply to Hanlees’ response.
This Stipulation is made without prejudice to, or waiver of, any rights or defenses
otherwise available to the Parties in this action.

9
10

DATED: December 5, 2016

11
12

SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
By:

/s/ Erik Kemp
Erik Kemp
Attorneys for Defendant ALLY FINANCIAL INC.

13
14
15
16
17

LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN PUTNAM

18
19

Dated: December 5, 2016

By:

/s/ Martin S. Putnam
_____
Martin S. Putnam
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
HANLEES FREMONT, INC.

20
21
22
23

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

7
Dated: December __, 2016

By:

__________________________________
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

26
27
28
-3STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time for Hanlees Fremont, Inc. to Respond to Ally
Financial, Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claims, and to Extend Time for Ally’s Reply
Thereto3:16-cv-04074-HSG