Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC
Filing
69
STIPULATION AND ORDER re #68 Stipulation and Proposed Order Re Briefing Of Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint And Case Management Conference filed by General Motors LLC Case Management Statement due by 12/7/2017. Initial Case Management Conference reset for 12/14/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Motion to Dismiss due 10/10/2017. Motion to Dismiss hearing set for 12/14/17 at 1:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/14/17. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
JOSEPH J. YBARRA (SBN 218130)
Joseph.Ybarra@hysmlaw.com
HUANG YBARRA SINGER & MAY LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 1850
Los Angeles, California 90071
Tel.: (213) 884-4902
Fac.: (213) 884-4910
8
GREGORY R. OXFORD (SBN 62333)
goxford@icclawfirm.com
ISAACS CLOUSE CROSE & OXFORD LLP
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 950
Torrance, California 90503
Tel.: (310) 316-1990
Fac.: (310) 316-1330
9
Attorneys for Defendant General Motors LLC
6
7
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MONTEVILLE SLOAN, JR., RAUL SIQUEIROS,
TODD AND JILL CRAWLEY; JOSEPH BRANNAN,
LARRY GOODWIN, MARC PERKINS, DONALD
LUDINGTON, THOMAS SHORTER, DERICK
BRADFORD, GABRIEL DEL VALLE, KEVIN
HANNEKEN, EDWIN AND KATELYN DOEPEL,
DAN MADSON, JAMES FAULKNER, JOSEPH
OLIVIER, SCOTT SMITH, ROSS DAHL, DREW
PETERSON, MICHAEL WARE, STEVE KITCHEN,
BARBARA MOLINA, DENNIS VITA, STEVEN
EHRKE, THOMAS GULLING, RONALD JONES,
MIKE WARPINSKI, WILLIAM MARTELL, JOHN
GRAZIANO, JOSHUA BYRGE, RUDY SANCHEZ,
CHRISTOPHER THACKER, RANDY CLAUSEN,
KELLY HARRIS, JAMES ROBERTSON, and JONAS
BEDNAREK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
24
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE
BRIEFING OF MOTION TO
DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Plaintiffs,
25
26
Case No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC
v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant.
1
STIPULATION RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CMC
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-07244-EMC
1
WHEREAS, the Court, on August 1, 2017, issued an Order granting the motion of
2
defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”) to dismiss plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action
3
Complaint, with leave to amend (Dkt. No. 62);
4
5
6
7
WHEREAS, plaintiffs, on August 31, 2017, filed their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint (Dkt. No. 67);
WHEREAS, GM’s response to the Second Amended Complaint presently is due on
September 14, 2017 pursuant to Rule 15(a)(3);
8
WHEREAS, the 231-page, 1,753-paragraph Second Amended Complaint includes seven
9
new plaintiffs, two new states, and 113 separate causes of action (not including claims for breach
10
of express warranty that plaintiffs have included “strictly to preserve them for purposes of
11
appeal,” see SAC p. 59 n. 40);
12
13
14
15
WHEREAS, GM intends to move under Rule 12 to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint and has requested additional time to prepare the Motion;
WHEREAS, plaintiffs anticipate the need for additional time to prepare an
Opposition to the motion;
16
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, upon the following:
17
1.
18
GM shall have until October 10, 2017 to file its Motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint;
19
2.
20
to GM’s Motion;
21
3.
22
Plaintiffs shall have until November 15, 2017 to file their response in Opposition
November 30, 2017
GM shall have until December 1, 2017 to file any Reply in further support of its
Motion;
23
4.
24
the Court;
25
5.
26
Motion:
thirty-five (35) pages [GM intends to try to limit its Motion to 25 pages]
27
Opposition:
thirty-five (35) pages
The hearing on GM’s Motion shall be set on any later date that is convenient for
December 14, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.
The following page limits shall apply to the briefing of GM’s Motion:
28
2
STIPULATION RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CMC
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-07244-EMC
1
Reply:
twenty (20) pages if plaintiffs’ Opposition exceeds 25 pages, and
2
fifteen (15) pages if plaintiffs’ Opposition does not exceed 25 pages
3
WHEREAS, the Court has set a Case Management Conference for September 21, 2017;
4
WHEREAS, the parties believe that it would serve both judicial economy and the parties’
5
interest in conserving their legal resources to continue the Case Management Conference until
6
after the Court’s ruling on GM’s Motion,
7
8
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between plaintiffs and GM, by and through their
undersigned counsel, that the Court may enter its order as follows:
9
1.
10
approved.
11
2.
The parties’ agreements on briefing schedule and page limits set forth above are
The Case Management Conference set for September 21, 2017 is vacated. The
12
parties will submit Case Management Statements within thirty days after the Court issues its
13
ruling on GM’s motion, with the Case Management Conference to be set thereafter at a date and
14
time convenient for the Court.
15
DATED: September 11, 2017
16
/s/ Adam J. Levitt
Adam J. Levitt
/s/ Gregory R. Oxford
Gregory R. Oxford
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: 312-214-7900
alevitt@dlcfirm.com
ISAACS CLOUSE CROSE & OXFORD
LLP
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 950
Torrance, California 90503
Telephone: 310-316-1990
goxford@icclawfirm.com
550 South Hope Street, Suite 1850
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 884-4902
Joseph.Ybarra@hysmlaw.com
23
24
Counsel for General Motors LLC
25
26
28
Dated: September
14
__,
2017
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
__________________________________
ERED
O ORD D
IT IS S
United OStates District Judge
IE
M DIF
AS
n
3
d M. Che
e Edwar
RT
U
O
27
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, (as revised above and on p. 2)
NO
R NIA
22
________
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed HUANG YBARRA SINGER & MAY
Classes
LLP
FO
21
RT
Judg
STIPULATION RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CMC
ER
C
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-07244-EMC
N
OF
D
H
LI
20
A
19
S
18
UNIT
ED
17
CMC reset for 12/14/17 at 1:30 p.m. A joint CMC
statement shall be filed by 12/7/17.
IS T RIC T
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?