Faulk v. Sears Roebuck and Co
Filing
62
STIPULATION AND AMENDED ORDER REGARDING A CHANGE IN THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR NAMED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re 61 Order on Stipulation. [Amended to reflect on the document that correct date for filing reply is November 26, 2012 (not 2013)]. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 9/18/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
T. John Kirk (Indiana Bar 27202-29)
(Pro Hac Vice)
MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO, P.C.
10100 Lantern Road, Suite 150
Fishers, IN 46037
Telephone: 317-598-2040
Facsimile: 317-598-2050
kirktjohn@mhclaw.com
Philip M. Oliss (Pro Hac Vice)
Bruce Khula (Pro Hac Vice)
SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
4900 Key Tower
127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 479-8500
Facsimile: (216) 479-8780
philip.oliss@squiresanders.com
bruce.khula@squiresanders.com
Additional counsel listed below
13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
15
16
17
KEVIN FAULK, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff,
-vSEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.,
Defendant
Case Number: 4:11-CV-02159-YGR
STIPULATION REGARDING A
CHANGE IN THE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR NAMED PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
AND AMENDED ORDER
22
23
24
25
Through this Stipulated Request and [Proposed] Order, Plaintiff Kevin Faulk (“Plaintiff”)
26
and Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”) stipulate and agree to change the briefing on
27
28
-1STIPULATION REGARDING A CHANGE IN THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: 4:11-CV-02159-YGR
1
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, and jointly request that the Court approve this change
2
pursuant to L.R. 6-2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
WHEREAS, in a minute entry on January 20, 2012, Judge Susan Illston set the following
schedule for class certification:
Deadline for filing of anticipated class
October 5, 2012
certification motion
Sears’ opposition to class certification due
November 9, 2012
Plaintiff’s reply in support of class certification
November 26, 2012
due
Hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for class
December 17, 2012
certification:
10
11
12
WHEREAS, the case was transferred to the Honorable Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
on March 28, 2012 [Dkt. 54];
13
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2012, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers reset the hearing date for
14
Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for class certification to December 11, 2012 with the briefing
15
schedule remaining the unchanged [Dkt. 55];
16
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2012, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter and requested available
17
dates for depositions of a number of Defendant’s current and former employees located in
18
Oregon, Washington, Chicago, and Las Vegas, and each of those depositions has occurred or has
19
been scheduled to occur during the month of September, with the sole exception of Rick Sawyer,
20
21
22
23
24
a former employee of Defendant discussed in the Amended Complaint and a witness Named
Plaintiff believes is key for Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification ;
WHEREAS, although the Parties have been diligent in trying to schedule Mr. Sawyer’s
deposition, the only available date for Named Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant’s counsel, and Mr.
Sawyer is October 3, 2012, two days before the current due date for Named Plaintiff’s Motion
25
for Class Certification;
26
27
28
-2STIPULATION REGARDING A CHANGE IN THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: 4:11-CV-02159-YGR
1
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2012, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting
2
the deposition of Named Plaintiff in September, but was advised by Plaintiff’s counsel that
3
Named Plaintiff is not unavailable for deposition during the last two weeks of September;
4
WHEREAS, although the Parties have been diligent in trying to schedule Named
5
Plaintiff’s deposition, the first available date for Named Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, and
6
Defendant’s counsel is October 9, 2012;
7
8
9
10
11
12
WHEREAS, the Parties previously requested a four month extension of the hearing on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification [Dkt. 58];
WHEREAS, the previous request for the extension of the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion
for Class Certification was denied [Dkt. 59];
WHEREAS, the Parties understand the Court’s desire to keep the hearing date on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Thus, this Stipulation does not seek to change the
13
hearing date for Plaintiff’s Motion, but only changes its briefing schedule.
14
WHEREAS, while the proposed schedule shortens Defendant’s time in which to oppose
15
class certification, Plaintiff has represented that Defendant will not be prejudiced by the
16
shortened response time as Plaintiff has agreed to identify any potential declarants in a timely
17
fashion and to cooperate fully in Defendant’s efforts to take their depositions sufficiently in
18
advance of the deadline for Sears’ opposition brief.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, the Parties hereby
stipulate to, and request the Court’s approval of, a change in the class certification briefing
schedule, while keeping the same hearing date:
Deadline for filing of Plaintiff’s anticipated
October 12, 2012
motion for class certification
Sears’ opposition to class certification due
November 9, 2012
Plaintiff’s reply in support of class certification
November 26, 2012
due
Hearing on motion for class certification
December 11, 2012
27
28
-3STIPULATION REGARDING A CHANGE IN THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: 4:11-CV-02159-YGR
1
2
Dated: September 12, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ T. John Kirk
T. John Kirk (Indiana Bar 27202-29)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Thomas K. Caldwell (Indiana Bar 16001-49)
(Pro Hac Vice)
MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO, P.C.
10100 Lantern Road, Suite 150
Fishers, IN 46037
Telephone: 317-598-2040
Facsimile: 317-598-2050
tkcaldwell@mhclaw.com
Barbara Quinn Smith (Ohio Bar 0055328)
(Pro Hac Vice)
MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO, P.C.
9930 Johnnycake Ridge Road
Suite 3F
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: 440-354-4010
Facsimile: 440-848-8175
bqsmith@mhclaw.com
Robert G. Padrick (SBN 103971)
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT G. PADRICK, A PLC
961 Woodside Road, Suite B
Redwood City, CA 94061
Telephone: 650-268-9750
Facsimile: 650-268-9750
rgpadrick@padricklaw.com
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Bruce Khula
____________
Bruce Khula (Pro Hac Vice)
Philip M. Oliss (Pro Hac Vice)
Bruce Khula (Pro Hac Vice)
SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
4900 Key Tower
127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone:
(216) 479-8500
Facsimile:
(216) 479-8780
philip.oliss@squiresanders.com
-4STIPULATION REGARDING A CHANGE IN THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: 4:11-CV-02159-YGR
bruce.khula@squiresanders.com
1
Mark C. Dosker (CA Bar No. 114789)
Julie E. Schwartz (CA Bar No. 260624)
SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 954-0210
Facsimile: (415) 393-9887
mark.dosker@squiresanders.com
julie.schwartz@squiresanders.com
2
3
4
5
6
7
Attorneys for Defendant
8
9
10
11
AMENDED
12
13
14
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the Stipulation between the Parties, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED, that
15
16
17
18
19
20
1. Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification on or before October 12, 2012;
2. Defendant shall file its response in opposition to the motion for class certification on
or before November 9, 2012;
3. Plaintiff shall file his reply in support of the motion for class certification on or before
2012
November 26, 2013;
21
22
23
24
4. The hearing on the motion for class certification will be set for December 11, 2012 or
as the Court’s schedule may allow.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
September 18, 2012
Dated: __________________________
____________________________________
JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
-5-
STIPULATION REGARDING A CHANGE IN THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: 4:11-CV-02159-YGR
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?