McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al

Filing 33

ORDER re 30 GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 6/17/09. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MAYER BROWN LLP JOHN NADOLENCO (SBN 181128) jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com JOSEPH W. GOODMAN (SBN 230161) jgoodman@mayerbrown.com 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 Attorneys for Defendants AT&T MOBILITY LLC; NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC; NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP ADAM J. GUTRIDE (SBN 181446) adam@gutridesafier.com SETH A. SAFIER (SBN 197427) seth@gutridesafier.com 835 Douglass Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (415) 336-6545 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Attorneys for Plaintiff STEVEN MCARDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN MCARDLE, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC; NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS LLC; NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants. Case No. CV-09-01117 (CW) JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR ORDER Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken 28804225 JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. CV-09-01117(CW) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 28804225 Plaintiff Steven McArdle ("Plaintiff") and Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC, and New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. (collectively, "ATTM"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS: 1. 2. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action on February 10, 2009, in the On March 10, 2009, ATTM answered the Complaint pursuant to Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. California Code of Civil Procedure 430.40. The answer contained a general denial of all allegations, and affirmative defenses. 3. 4. 5. On March 13, 2009, ATTM removed this case to this Court. On May 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Beginning June 8, 2009, Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for ATTM began discussing ATTM's proposed stipulation to allow its response to the original Complaint to be deemed ATTM's response to the First Amended Complaint. 6. On June 11, 2009, Counsel for Plaintiff informed Counsel for ATTM that they would not stipulate to have ATTM's answer to the original Complaint be deemed its response to the First Amended Complaint, because, among other reasons, the answer does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b). 7. The current deadline for ATTM's response to the First Amended Complaint is June 12, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES JOINTLY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: The parties request the Court to order that ATTM can have to and including June 19, 2009 to file an answer to the First Amended Complaint. This extension shall not permit ATTM to file any response to the First Amended Complaint other than an answer. 1 JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. CV-09-01117(CW) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: June , 2009 MAYER BROWN LLP JOHN NADOLENCO JOSEPH W. GOODMAN By: Joseph W. Goodman Attorneys for Defendants AT&T MOBILITY LLC, ET AL Dated: June , 2009 GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP ADAM J. GUTRIDE SETH A. SAFIER By: Seth A. Safier Attorneys for Plaintiff STEVEN MCARDLE IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 17 , 2009________ The Honorable Claudia Wilken United States District Court Judge 28804225 -2JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. CV-09-01117(CW)

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?