Robey v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 27

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 26 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 25 Amended Complaint, Concerning Time to File Response to Amended Complaint filed by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/10/17. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2017)

333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
SUITE 2100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071

DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP

1 DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
Tamara A. Bush (SBN 197153)
2 [e-mail]
John M. Thomas (SBN. 266842)
3 [e-mail]
Janet L. Conigliaro (P72629) Pro Hac Vice
4 [e-mail]
333 South Grand Avenue
5 Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
6 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
7
Attorneys for Defendant
8 TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.
9 GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Lionel Z. Glancy (#134180)
10 Mark S. Greenstone (#199606)
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
11
Los Angeles, California 90067
12 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
13 E-mail: [e-mail]
14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL ROBEY, MOE ASGHARNIA and
15 JAMES COMB Individually and On Behalf
of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
18
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
19
MICHAEL ROBEY, MOE ASGHARNIA and
Case No. 3:16-cv-07212-EMC
20 JAMES COMB Individually and On Behalf of a
Class of Similarly Situated Individuals,
[Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen]
21
Plaintiffs,
CLASS ACTION
22
vs.
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
23
ORDER CONCERNING TIME TO FILE
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. and
RESPONSE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
24 TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
Complaint Filed: December 16, 2016
25
Defendants.
Complaint Served: January 6, 2017
1st Amended Complaint Filed: April 7, 2017
26
_______________________________________
27
28

1
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07212-EMC

1

Plaintiff MICHAEL ROBEY, MOE ASGHARNIA and JAMES COMB Individually and On

2 Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant TOYOTA
3 MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. (“Defendant”) (collectively the “Parties”), by and through their
4 respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
5

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action complaint against Defendant in the

6 Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, on December 16, 2016 (the “Complaint”);
7

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served the Complaint on Defendant on January 5, 2017;

8

WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on February 24, 2017;

9

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 7, 2017, containing

11
333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
SUITE 2100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071

DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP

10 significant amendments;
WHEREAS, Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is currently due on

12 May 12, 2017;
13

WHEREAS, the Parties are engaged in discussions to determine whether it is feasible to

14 resolve this matter without the need for further litigation;
15

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that a brief two-week continuance of the deadline for

16 Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint will facilitate the Parties’ settlement
17 discussions, and result in a more efficient expenditure of judicial resources;
18

WHEREAS, the Parties request that Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’

19 Amended Complaint, currently set for May 12, 2017, be continued to May 26, 2017;
20

WHEREAS, the Parties have previously requested one extension of time for Defendant to

21 file a response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint;
22

WHEREAS, counsel for Defendant, as the filer of this document, attests that concurrence in

23 the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories;
24

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT, subject to the

25 Court’s approval:
26

1.

Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint shall be continued from

27 May 12, 2017, until May 26, 2017.
28

2
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07212-EMC

1 Dated: May 9, 2017

DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP

2
By: /s/ Tamara A. Bush
.
John M. Thomas
Tamara A. Bush
Attorneys for Defendant
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

3
4
5
6
7 Dated: May 9, 2017

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

8
9

11
333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
SUITE 2100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071

DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP

10

12

By: /s/ Mark S. Greenstone
.
Lionel Z. Glancy
Mark S. Greenstone
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL ROBEY, MOE ASGHARNIA
and JAMES COMB Individually and On
Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated
Individuals

13
14
15
16

General Order 45, Section X Certification
The filing attorney hereby certifies that concurrence in the filing of the document has been

17 obtained from each signatory, in accordance with N.D. Cal. Gen. Order 45, Section X(B).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07212-EMC

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Having reviewed the Parties’ Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Concerning Time to

3 File Response to Amended Complaint, and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
4 THAT:
5

1.

Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint shall be continued from

6 May 12, 2017, until May 26, 2017.

14

R NIA

By: ________________________________
HON. EDWARD M. CHEN
hen
UNITED .STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
rd M C
ge Edwa
Jud

FO

LI

ER

H

13

ERED

A

12

RT

333 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
SUITE 2100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071

11

O ORD
IT IS S

NO

DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP

May 10, 2017
10 DATED:________________

UNIT
ED

9

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

S

7

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-07212-EMC