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)
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?