Shin v. ICON Foundation

Filing 39

ORDER granting 38 STIPULATION re: 37 MOTION to Strike 28 Amended Complaint. Response due by 3/5/2021. Reply due by 3/19/2021. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/16/2021. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2021)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 Kyle W. Roche (pro hac vice) Edward Normand (pro hac vice) Ivy T. Ngo (SBN 249860) Daniel M. Stone (pro hac vice) ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10016 5 6 7 Katherine Eskovitz (SBN 255105) ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP 1158 26th Street No. 175 Santa Monica, CA 90403 8 9 Counsel for Plaintiff Mark Shin 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 MARK SHIN, 15 16 17 Plaintiff, vs. 18 19 20 ICON FOUNDATION, Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) Case Number: 3:20-cv-07363-WHO ) ) JOINT STIPULATION AND ) ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO ) STRIKE SCHEDULING ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The parties to the above-entitled action, Mark Shin (“Plaintiff”) and Icon Foundation (“Defendant” or “ICON,” and together with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on October 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, Dkt. No. 1 (the “Initial Complaint”); Page 1 of 3 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO STRIKE SCHEDULING 3:20-cv-07363-WHO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 WHEREAS, on December 18, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Initial Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Dkt. No. 25; WHEREAS, on January 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), Dkt. No. 28 (the “Amended Complaint”); WHEREAS, on January 22, 2021, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation regarding ICON’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and set a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss for April 7, 2021 at 2 p.m., Dkt. No. 31; WHEREAS, ICON filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in accordance with that schedule on March 5, 2021, Dkt. No. 36; WHEREAS, ICON also filed a Special Motion to Strike Allegations in the Amened Complaint Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 on March 5, 2021, and such Motion was 12 also noticed for a hearing on April 7, 2021 at 2 p.m., Dkt. No. 37; and 13 14 15 16 17 18 WHEREAS, the Parties have conferred on a proposed schedule for the remaining motion practice; IT IS ACCORDINGLY STIPULATED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the Parties, subject to the Court’s approval, as follows: 1) On or before March 5, 2021, Plaintiff will file a brief in opposition to Defendant’s 19 motion to strike. 20 2) 21 motion to strike. 22 23 24 25 26 On or before March 19, 2021, Defendants will file a reply in further support of its Dated: February 16, 2021 /s/ Kyle Roche Kyle W. Roche (pro hac vice) Edward Normand (pro hac vice) Katherine Eskovtiz Ivy T. Ngo Daniel M. Stone (pro hac vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff Mark Shin 27 28 Page 2 of 3 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO STRIKE SCHEDULING 3:20-cv-07363-WHO 1 2 Dated: February 16, 2021 3 4 5 /s/ Christopher Wanger Christopher Wanger Rebecca Rettig (pro hac vice) Misa K. Eiritz Attorneys for Defendant Icon Foundation 6 7 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:February 16, 2021 HON. WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO STRIKE SCHEDULING 3:20-cv-07363-WHO

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?