Boconvi et al v. Velocity Express, LLC et al
Filing
38
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 37 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation Regarding Briefing Schedule filed by James R Mack, Claude K Boconvi. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 7, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ROBERT G. HULTENG, Bar No. 071293
rhulteng@littler.com
AURELIO J. PÉREZ, Bar No. 282135
aperez@littler.com
BYUNG-KWAN PARK, Bar No. 306719
bpark@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-1940
Fax: (415) 399-8490
Attorneys for Defendants
VELOCITY EXPRESS, LLC and TRANSFORCE,
INC. and DYNAMEX OPERATIONS EAST, LLC
14
Timothy J. Becker (MN Bar No. 256663)
tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
Jacob R. Rusch (MN Bar No. 391892)
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
Molly E. Nephew (MN Bar No. 397607)
mnephew@johnsonbecker.com
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone:
612.436.1800
Facsimile:
612.436.1801
15
Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs
10
11
12
13
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
18
19
CLAUDE K. BOCONVI and JAMES R.
MACK,
Plaintiffs,
20
21
22
23
24
v.
Case No. 3:17-cv-02623-JST
Assigned for all purposes to the Honorable Jon
S. Tigar
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
VELOCITY EXPRESS, LLC a whollyowned subsidiary of Dynamex Operations
East, LLC, TRANSFORCE, INC., and
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS EAST, LLC,
Defendants.
Complaint Filed:
1st Amended Complaint Filed:
2nd Amended Complaint Filed:
3rd Amended Complaint Filed:
4th Amended Complaint Filed:
Nov. 9, 2012
Jan. 8, 2013
July 18, 2013
Mar. 28, 2014
June 26, 2014
25
26
27
28
JT STIP RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Case No. 3:17-cv-02623-JST
1
On July 6, 2017, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and
2
Costs from August 17, 2017, to September 21, 2017. Following a short meet-and-confer regarding
3
the current briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Parties agreed to the following amended
4
briefing deadlines with respect to Plaintiffs’ forthcoming Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs:
5
Original Date
6
New Date
Plaintiffs’ Motion
July 14, 2017
August 2, 2017
Defendants’ Opposition
July 31, 2017
August 18, 2017
Plaintiffs’ Reply
August 7, 2017
August 25, 2017
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Under the original briefing schedule, Plaintiffs’ Motion was to be fully briefed 10 days prior
to the hearing date. Under the new briefing schedule, briefing will conclude 25 days prior to the
hearing date. The amended schedule will not prejudice either party and no other extension has been
requested.
SO STIPULATED.
Dated: July 7, 2017
/s/ Byung-Kwan Park ____________________
ROBERT G. HULTENG
AURELIO J. PÉREZ
BYUNG-KWAN PARK
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
VELOCITY EXPRESS, LLC and
TRANSFORCE, INC. and DYNAMEX
OPERATIONS EAST, LLC
Dated: July 7, 2017
/s/ Jacob R. Rusch_______________________
TIMOTHY J. BECKER
JACOB R. RUSCH
MOLLY E. NEPHEW
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JT STIP RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
1.
Case No. 3:17-cv-02623-JST
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
July 7
Dated: ____________________, 2017
4
5
THE HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JT STIP RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
2.
Case No. 3:17-cv-02623-JST
1
2
3
ATTESTATION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i)(3)
I, Jacob Rusch, declare under penalty of perjury and pursuant to the laws of California and the
United States that I have in my possession e-mail correspondence from Byung-Kwan Park that the
4
content of this Joint Stipulation is acceptable to all persons required to sign it.
5
/s/ Jacob R. Rusch
Jacob R. Rusch
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JT STIP RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
3.
Case No. 3:17-cv-02623-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?