Baranco v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 105

STIPULATION AND ORDER re #103 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re #100 Amended Complaint, Responding to Plaintiffs' 3rd Amended Complaint filed by Ford Motor Company. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/18/18. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 DAVID BARANCO, JAMES ABBITT,

Case No. 3:17-cv-03580-EMC

12

Assigned to Hon.Edward M. Chen,
Courtroom 5 – San Francisco

13
14
15

HARRIET ABRUSCATO, DONALD
BROWN, DANIEL CARON, GARY
DICKEN, ANITA FARRELL, JOHN
FURNO, GREG CARAT, JOHN
HANNAH, GARY KUBBER, MALISA
NICOLAU, and APRIL NICOLO,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

16
17

vs.

18 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware

corporation,

19

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING
RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
[L.R. 6-1(A)]
Complaint Filed:
June 21, 2017
1st Amend Complaint: August 18, 2017
2nd Amend Complaint: April 11, 2018
3rd Amend Complaint: May 31, 2018
Trial Date:
November 4, 2019

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING AN ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [L-R 6.1(A)]
CASE NO. 3:17-cv-03580-EMC

1

Plaintiffs and Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY (“Ford”) (collectively

2 the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
3

WHEREAS, on May 31, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action

4 Complaint (“TAC”);
5

WHEREAS, Ford’s response to the TAC is currently due on June 21, 2018;

6

WHEREAS, Ford has advised Plaintiffs that it intends on filing a motion to

7 dismiss certain claims in response to the TAC in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
8 P.12(b)(6);
9

WHEREAS, upon stipulation of the parties, it is agreed that Ford need not file

10 an Answer to Plaintiffs’ TAC until after its motion is decided;
11

WHEREAS, the parties agree to the following deadlines relating to Ford’s

12 anticipated motion to dismiss;
13

June 28, 2018

Ford’s Motion to Dismiss TAC

14

August 10, 2018

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

15

August 24, 2018

Ford’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

16

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), this stipulation is permissible

17 without Court order because it does not alter the date of any event or any deadline
18 already fixed by Court order;
19

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

20 concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other
21 signatories;
22

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT:

23

1.

Ford will not file an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Class

24

Action Complaint but instead will file a motion to dismiss

25

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.12(b)(6);

26
27
28

2.

The briefing schedule relating to Fords’ anticipated Motion to
Dismiss is as follows:

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING FILING AN ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [L-R 6.1(A)]
CASE NO. 3:17-cv-03580-EMC

1

June 28, 2018

Ford’s Motion to Dismiss TAC

2

August 10, 2018

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

3

August 24, 2018

Ford’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss;

4

3.

Ford need not file an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Class
Action Complaint until after Ford’s Motion to Dismiss is decided.

5

6 Dated: June 15, 2018

DYKEMA GOSSETT LLC

7

By: /s/ Tamara A. Bush
David M. George (admitted pro hac vice)
John M. Thomas
Tamara A. Bush
Attorneys for Defendant
FORD MOTOR COMPANY

8
9
10
11

Dated: June 15, 2018

MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP

12

By:

13

/s/ Matthew D. Schelkopf
Matthew D. Schelkopf
Attorney for Plaintiffs

.

14

[PROPOSED] ORDER

15
16

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, the Stipulation is

17 GRANTED. The Court Orders that:
18

1.

The briefing schedule relating to Fords’ anticipated Motion to Dismiss

19 Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Class Action Complaint is as follows:
20

June 28, 2018

Ford’s Motion to Dismiss TAC Due

21

August 10, 2018

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Due

22

August 24, 2018

Ford’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Due;

23

3.

Ford need not file an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Class Action

24 Complaint until after Ford’s Motion to Dismiss is decided.

R NIA

FO

LI

RT

A

ER
C
3
N
OF
D IS T
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING RIC T
FILING AN ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [L-R 6.1(A)]
CASE NO. 3:17-cv-03580-EMC

H

28

ERED
By: ________________________________
O ORD
IT IS S
HON. EDWARD M. CHEN
. Ch
UNITED STATESenDISTRICT JUDGE
dward M
Judge E
NO

27

UNIT
ED

6/18/18
26 DATED:________________

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.