Rainbow Business Solutions et al v. Merchant Services, Inc et al

Filing 442

STIPULATION AND ORDER re Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to #429 MOTION for Sanctions FOR LEASING DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH JUNE ORDER AND STIPULATION, and #428 MOTION to Compel LEASING DEFENDANTS PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS FROM OTHER LAWSUITS. Responses due by 1/11/2013. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 1/7/2013. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

ROD O. DIVELBISS (SBN 102345)
[e-mail]
COLLETTE ERICKSON FARMER & O’NEILL LLP
235 PINE STREET, SUITE 1300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: [phone]
SCOTT E. SILBERFEIN (Pro Hac Vice)
JENNIFER NIGRO (Pro Hac Vice)
MOSES & SINGER LLP
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10174-1299
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., MBF
Leasing, LLC, Northern Funding, LLC, SKS Associates, LLC, Jay
Cohen, Sara Krieger, Leonard Mezei and Sam Buono

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

14
15
16
17

JUST FILM, INC.; ET AL.,

18
19
20

Plaintiffs,
v.
MERCHANT SERVICES, INC.; ET AL.,

21
22

CASE NO. CV 10-01993 CW
JOINT STIPULATION PURSUANT TO
LOCAL CIVIL RULE 6-2(b) TO
EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SANCTION

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Case No. C 10-1993 CW
JOINT STIPULATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 6-2 TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SANCTION

1

WHEREAS, on December 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Leasing

2

Defendants (Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., MBF Leasing, LLC, Northern Funding, LLC, SKS

3

Associates, LLC, Jay Cohen, Sara Krieger, Leonard Mezei and Sam Buono) to produce documents

4

from other lawsuits, and a motion to sanction Leasing Defendants for failure to comply with

5

discovery (dkt. #s 428 and 429, respectively) (“Plaintiffs’ Motions”);

6

WHEREAS, under the Local Rules, Leasing Defendants’ response(s) to Plaintiffs Motions

7

would have been due during the week of the Christmas holiday when the parties and counsel were

8

unavailable;

9

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs and Leasing Defendants agreed, via joint stipulation

10

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-2(b), to extend Leasing Defendants time to respond to Plaintiffs’

11

Motions from December 26, 2012 to January 3, 2013, and to extend Plaintiffs’ time to reply to

12

January 8, 2013, with a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motions set for January 15, 2013;

13
14
15

WHEREAS, on or about December 20, 2012, the parties’ joint stipulation and proposed
order was filed with the Court (dkt. # 436);
WHEREAS, an MS Word version of the parties’ joint stipulation and proposed order was

16

submitted to the email address of Magistrate Elizabeth D. Laporte, pursuant to Local Rule 5-1;

17

WHEREAS, by ECF notice dated December 27, 2012, the Court so-ordered the parties’

18

joint stipulation but modified the proposed order submitted therewith to reflect a new hearing date

19

of January 29, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.(dkt. # 437);

20

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs and Leasing Defendants agreed, via joint stipulation

21

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-2(b), to further extend Leasing Defendants time to respond to

22

Plaintiffs’ Motions from January 3, 2013 to January 8, 2013, and to extend Plaintiffs’ time to reply

23

to January 15, 2013, with a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motions set for January 29, 2013;

24
25
26
27
28
29

WHEREAS, on or about January 2, 2013, the parties’ joint stipulation and proposed order
was filed with the Court (dkt. # 438);
WHEREAS, an MS Word version of the parties’ joint stipulation and proposed order was
submitted to the email address of Magistrate Elizabeth D. Laporte, pursuant to Local Rule 5-1;
Case No. C 10-1993 CW
JOINT STIPULATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 6-2 TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SANCTION

1

WHEREAS, by ECF notice dated January 3, 2013 the Court so-ordered the parties’ joint

2

stipulation extending Leasing Defendants’ time to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motions from January 3,

3

2013 to January 8, 2013, and extending Plaintiffs’ time to reply to January 15, 2012, with a

4

hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motions set for January 29, 2013 (dkt. #439);

5

WHEREAS, the parties, through counsel, continue to meet and confer in good faith to

6

resolve the issues set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motions, and have agreed to further extend Leasing

7

Defendants’ time to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motions from the current deadline of January 8, 2013 to

8

January 11, 2013, with Plaintiffs’ reply due January 15, 2013, with a hearing on Plaintiffs’

9

Motions set for January 29, 2013;

10
11
12
13
14

WHEREAS, the foregoing extension will not change the January 29, 2013 hearing date
ordered by the Court (dkt. #437);
WHEREAS, two prior extensions with respect to Plaintiffs’ Motions have been requested
as set forth above;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED, by and between the undersigned parties

15

through their respective counsel of record, pursuant to Local Civil Rules 6-1(b) and 2(a), that the

16

Court extend Leasing Defendants’ time to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motions from January 8, 2013 to

17

January 11, 2013; Leasing Defendants shall have an extension to January 11, 2013 to file and

18

serve their responses to Plaintiffs’ Motions; Plaintiffs shall file and serve their reply by January

19

15, 2013; and the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motions shall be January 29, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. before

20

Hon. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte.

21

DATED: January 4, 2013

1:30

22

Respectfully submitted,

23

MOSES & SINGER LLP

24

By

25
26
27
28
29

/s/ Jennifer Nigro
Jennifer Nigro

Attorneys for Defendants Northern Leasing
Systems, Inc., MBF Leasing, LLC, Northern
2

Case No. 10-0-1993 CW

JOINT STIPULATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 6-2 TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SANCTION

1

Funding, LLC, SKS Associates, LLC,
Jay Cohen, Sara Krieger, Leonard Mezei and
Sam Buono

2
3

Scott E. Silberfein (pro hac vice)
Jennifer Nigro (pro hac vice)
Moses & Singer LLP

4
5

Rod O. Divelbiss
Collette Erickson Farmer & O’Neill LLP

6
7

GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP

8

By:

9
10

/s/ Kristen Simplicio
Kristen Simplicio, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

3

Case No. 10-0-1993 CW

JOINT STIPULATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 6-2 TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SANCTION

1

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-2(a), and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR,

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED: January 7, 2013

4
5
6

________________________________________
THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

4

Case No. 10-0-1993 CW

JOINT STIPULATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 6-2 TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AND PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SANCTION