Stagner v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc et al

Filing 13

ORDER re 12 Stipulation filed by Jessica Stagner, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 8 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation or, in the alternative, Dismiss and/or Strike. Responses due by 7/7/2011. Replies due by 7/14/2011. Motion Hearing set for 8/11/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/5/2011. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP
Michael Hoffman (SBN 154481)
[e-mail]
Alec Segarich (SBN 260189)
[e-mail]
100 Pine Street, Suite 1550
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff JESSICA STAGNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
10
11
100 Pine Street, Ste. 1550
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone]

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

9

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

JESSICA STAGNER, an individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH
AMERICA INC., an Ohio Corporation;
LENSCRAFTERS, INC., an Ohio
Corporation,

Case No. CV 11 2889 CW
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES RE:
TIMING OF OPPOSITION AND REPLY
FOR MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION AND STAY LITIGATION
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DISMISS
AND/OR STRIKE
Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Judge:

August 11, 2011
2:00 p.m.
2
Hon. Claudia Wilkin

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION RE: TIMING OF MOTION TO COMPEL/STAY
Stagner v. Luxottica, Inc.

WHEREAS, on May 20, 2011, Plaintiff Jessica Stagner filed a complaint against

1
2

Defendants Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. (“Luxottica”) and LensCrafters, Inc.

3

(“LensCrafters”) in the San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-11-511135,

4

alleging violations of the California Labor Code in an individual and representative capacity. On

5

June 13, 2011, Defendant filed a petition to remove the case to the United States District Court

6

for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (as amended by the Class

7

Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-2, section 4(a) (“CAFA”)), 1441(a) and (b) and 1446.

8

WHEREAS on June 20, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay

10

litigation or, in the alternative, dismiss and/or strike (the “motion to stay”). Presently, Plaintiff’s
deadline to oppose this motion is July 5, 2011, and Defendant’s reply is due July 12, 2011.
WHEREAS the Parties have conferred, and the Parties agree that Plaintiff’s deadline to

11
100 Pine Street, Ste. 1550
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone]

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

9

12

oppose the motion is extended to July 7, 2011. Likewise, Defendant’s deadline to file a reply to

13

Plaintiff’s opposition is extended to July 14, 2011. This stipulation is based on Plaintiff’s need

14

for additional time to brief the novel issues raised by the motion to stay.
WHEREAS, there have been no previous time modifications in the case, and this

15
16

modification will not affect the motion hearing itself, or any other deadline or schedule for the

17

case.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendant by and through

18
19

their respective counsel, that:

20

1. Pursuant to Local Rules 6.2(a) and 7-12, Plaintiff shall have until July 7, 2011, to file her

21

opposition to the motion to stay. Defendant shall have until July 14, 2011, to file any

22

reply papers to Plaintiff’s opposition.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-1STIPULATION RE: TIMING OF MOTION TO COMPEL/STAY
Stagner v. Luxottica, Inc.

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2

DATED: July _5_, 2011

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP
/S/ Michael Hoffman
_________________________________________
Michael Hoffman, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff JESSICA STAGNER

3
4
5
6
7

DATED: July _5_, 2011

/S/ Lynne C. Hermle
_________________________________________
Lynne C. Hermle, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants Luxottica Retail North
America, Inc., and LensCrafters, Inc.

8
9
10
11
100 Pine Street, Ste. 1550
San Francisco, CA 94111
[phone]

HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

ORRICK, HERRINGTON, AND SUTCLIFFE LLP

12

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

July 5
DATED: _____________________, 2011

_________________________________________
Hon. Claudia Wilken
Judge of the United States District Court

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2STIPULATION RE: TIMING OF MOTION TO COMPEL/STAY
Stagner v. Luxottica, Inc.