Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER ON 17 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REQUESTING CLARIFICATION OF COURTS ORDER RELATING CASES AND SETTING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULES. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/28/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

FAINE DAVIS, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly
situated,

6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER ON
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION REQUESTING
CLARIFICATION OF
COURT’S ORDER
RELATING CASES AND
SETTING BRIEFING
AND HEARING
SCHEDULES
(Docket No. 17)

Plaintiff,
v.
NORDSTROM, INC.,

9
10

No. C 11-3956 CW

Defendant.
________________________________/

11
12

On October 21, 2011, Defendant Nordstrom, Inc. filed an

13

administrative motion requesting clarification of this Court’s

14

order of October 18, 2011 (Docket No. 14).

15

that its Motion to Compel Arbitration has already been fully

16

briefed.

17

Arbitration on September 16, 2011, Plaintiff Faine Davis filed an

18

Opposition on September 30, 2011 and Defendant filed a Reply in

19

Support of its Motion on October 7, 2011.

20

Defendant represents

Specifically, after Defendant filed the Motion to Compel

Defendant is correct that no additional briefing is necessary

21

on the Motion to Compel Arbitration.

22

maintained for December 8, 2011.

23

The hearing date is

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27
28

Dated: 10/28/2011

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge