Ponce v. Amazon.Com Services, Inc. et al

Filing 54

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 52 Requesting Amended Briefing Schedule and Hearing, and to Continue Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/10/19. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 MARK E. BURTON, State Bar No. 178400 mburton@hershlaw.com JOSUE APARICIO, State Bar No. 322750 japaricio@hershlaw.com HERSH & HERSH, A Professional Corporation 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2080 San Francisco, CA 94102-6316 (415) 441-5544 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 ADRIANA PONCE, on behalf of herself and all others that are similarly situated, 14 15 16 17 3:19-cv-00288-RS STIPULATION REQUESTING AMENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STAY OR DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE FIRST TO FILE RULE, AND TO CONTINUE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2; ORDER AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT Plaintiffs, 12 13 Case No. vs. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; ALAIN MONIE, a California Resident; JOHN BROWN, a California Resident; WILLIAM GORDON, a California Resident; and Does 1100, inclusive, Hon. Richard Seeborg 18 Defendants. Current Response Date: June 13, 2019 19 Action Filed: November 1, 2018 Trial Date: None Set 20 21 22 Plaintiff ADRIANA PONCE (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants AMAZON.COM, INC., 23 AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., ALAIN MONIE, JOHN 24 BROWN and WILLIAM GORDON (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through 25 their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 26 27 28 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in this action on April 18, 2019; WHEREAS, Defendants filed, in response to Plaintiffs’ SAC, a Motion to Compel 1 STIPULATION REQUESTING AMENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 Arbitration or, in the alternative, to stay; 2 WHEREAS, individually named Defendants ALAIN MONIE, JOHN BROWN and 3 WILLIAM GORDON filed a responsive motion that joined in Defendants’ Motion to Compel 4 Arbitration, and, alternatively sought Dismissal of the SAC for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which 5 Relief can be Granted; 6 WHEREAS, Defendants AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., and 7 AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., also filed, in response to Plaintiffs’ SAC, a Motion to Stay or 8 Dismiss Pursuant to the First-to-File Rule; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs need additional time to prepare responses to Defendants’ three 9 10 Motions; WHEREAS, Defendants anticipate that they will require additional time to file replies in 11 12 response to Plaintiff’s Oppositions; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Counsel have a trial date of September 9, 2019 in San Francisco 13 14 Superior Court; WHEREAS, the Parties had previously stipulated to an extension of time for Defendants to 15 16 respond to the SAC; WHEREAS, on June 4, 2019, Plaintiffs requested that Defendants stipulate to an extension 17 18 of time for Plaintiffs’ responses to the Defendants’ motions; WHEREAS, the Civil Local Rules, including Rule 6-2, permit parties to stipulate to extended 19 20 time for complex motions; 21 WHEREAS, the Initial Case Management Conference is currently scheduled for August 22, 22 2019 at 10:00 a.m., and the Parties’ joint case management conference statement is currently due 23 one week before on August 15, 2019; 24 WHEREAS, the Parties believe that it will be more productive to conduct an Initial Case 25 Management Conference after the Court hears and rules on the pending Motions which may narrow 26 issues to be addressed at the Initial Case Management Conference; 27 /// 28 /// 2 STIPULATION REQUESTING AMENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree and stipulate to the following: 1 1. Plaintiffs’ deadline to oppose Defendants’ pending motions is extended to July 18, 2 2019; 3 2. The deadline for Defendants’ corresponding replies in support of said Motions is 4 extended to August 15, 2019; 5 3. The hearing on the Motions is continued until September 5, 2019 at 1:30 p.m., or as 6 soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court’s schedule; and 7 8 4. The Initial Case Management Conference shall be continued until after the Court has 9 heard and ruled on the motions currently pending before it, and it shall be scheduled as is convenient for the Court’s schedule. 10 11 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 12 13 14 Dated: June 6, 2019 HERSH & HERSH, APC 15 17 By /s/ Josue Aparicio Mark E. Burton Josue Aparicio 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16 19 20 Dated: June 6, 2019 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 21 By /s/ Amy A. McGeever John S. Battenfeld Brian D. Fahy Amy A. McGeever 22 23 24 Attorneys for Defendants 25 26 27 28 /// /// 3 STIPULATION REQUESTING AMENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ORDER 1 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION: 3 1. Plaintiffs shall file their oppositions to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration or, in 4 the Alternative, to Stay; Motion to Compel Arbitration, or in the Alternative, Dismiss for 5 Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted; and Motion to Stay or 6 Dismiss Pursuant to the First-to File Rule (collectively, “the Motions”) on or before July 7 18, 2019; 8 9 10 11 12 13 2. Defendants shall file their corresponding replies in support of the Motions on or before August 15, 2019; 1:30 September 5 3. The hearing on the Motions is continued until _____________, 2019 at _______ XX a.m./p.m.; and 4. The Initial Case Management Conference is continued until after the Court has heard and ruled on the motions before it. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 Dated: June_____, 2019 10 The Honorable Richard Seeborg 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION REQUESTING AMENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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?