Peter Schuman et al v. Microchip Technology Incorporated et al

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting #20 Stipulation to Extend Time for Plaintiff to Respond to #17 Motion to Dismiss. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Cliff Palefsky (SBN 77683)
Keith Ehrman (SBN 106985)
MCGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY
535 Pacific Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Michael Rubin (SBN 80618)
Connie K. Chan (SBN 284230)
Raphael N. Rajendra (SBN 255096)
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Mark G. Kisicki, Esq. (SBN 150057)
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
Esplanade Center III, Suite 800
2415 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20
21
22

PETER SCHUMAN, an individual, and
WILLIAM COPLIN, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,

23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG
CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY
INCORPORATED, a corporation; ATMEL
CORPORATION, a corporation; and ATMEL
CORPORATION U.S. SEVERANCE
GUARANTEE BENEFIT PROGRAM, an
employee benefit plan,

Hearing Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Action Filed:
Trial Date:

February 9, 2017
2:00pm
10
September 29, 2016
None

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
4:16-CV-05544-HSG

1

1

Defendants Microchip Technology Incorporated (“Microchip”), Atmel Corporation

2

(“Atmel”), and Atmel Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit Program (“Severance

3

Program” and, collectively with Microchip and Atmel, “Defendants”) filed their Motion to

4

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Defendants Microchip and

5

Atmel Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit Program as Defendants on November 16,

6

2016. Hearing on this motion is scheduled for February 17, 2017, at 2:00pm.

7

Plaintiffs Peter Schuman and William Coplin (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants

8

have agreed to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

9

Plaintiff’s Opposition will be due on December 21, 2016. Defendants’ Reply will be due on

10

January 4, 2017.

11

Dated: November 29, 2016

12

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK, & STEWART, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants

13
By: /s/ Mark G. Kisicki

14
15

McGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY and
ALTSCHULER BERZON LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16
17
18
19
20

By: /s/ Cliff Palefsky
IT IS SO ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Opposition shall be filed no later than December 21, 2016; and

2.

Defendant’s Reply shall be filed no later than January 4, 2017.

21
22
23
24
25

Dated: November 30, 2016

___________________________________
JUDGE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

26
27
28
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
4:16-CV-05544-HSG

2