Rodriguez v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC

Filing 35

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT re 34 Stipulation, filed by Daniel Rodriguez, Sony Network Entertainment International LLC, Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/3/12. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) ([e-mail])
RAY A. SARDO (245421) ([e-mail])
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
COOLEY LLP
MICHELLE C. DOOLIN (179445) ([e-mail])
NICOLAS J. ECHEVESTRE (273747) ([e-mail])
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121-1909
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

10

Attorneys for Defendants
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC AND
SONY NETWORK ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL LLC.

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

OAKLAND DIVISION

14
15

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,

16
17
18
19
20
21

Case No. 11-CV-4084-PJH
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
(CIV. L.R. 6-1)

v.
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
AMERICA LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, SONY NETWORK
ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10

Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

Defendants.

22
23
24

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1, defendants Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

25

(“SCEA”) and Sony Network Entertainment International LLC (“SNEI”) (collectively

26

“Defendants”) and plaintiff Daniel Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) (collectively with Defendants, the

27

“Parties”), stipulate as follows:

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO

1.

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
11-CV-4084-PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6

WHEREAS, on August 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a putative Class Action Complaint against
SCEA in the above-captioned matter (Dkt. No. 1);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and SCEA stipulated to extend the deadline for SCEA to respond to
the Class Action Complaint to November 30, 2011 (Dkt. No. 20);
WHEREAS, SCEA filed its Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to Strike on
November 30, 2011 (Dkt. No. 21);

7

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and SCEA stipulated to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file his

8

Opposition to SCEA’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to Strike until December 21, 2011

9

(Dkt. No. 31);

10
11
12
13
14
15

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to SCEA’s Motion to Dismiss
or, in the alternative, to Strike, on December 21, 2011 (Dkt. No. 32);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint on December 21,
2011 (Dkt. No. 33);
WHEREAS, the First Amended Class Action Complaint adds SNEI as a new defendant,
makes new allegations against SCEA, and consists of 15 pages and 75 numbered paragraphs;

16

WHEREAS, in light of Defendants’ and counsels’ limited availability over the holidays,

17

the addition of a new defendant, and the inclusion of new allegations against SCEA, Defendants

18

have requested additional time to respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint than the

19

time frame otherwise applicable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

20
21

WHEREAS this is the Parties’ first stipulation extending the time to respond to the First
Amended Class Action Complaint;

22

WHEREAS, extending the deadline for Defendants to file their responses to the First

23

Amended Class Action Complaint as set forth below will not alter the date of any event or

24

deadline already fixed by Court order;

25
26

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has agreed to extend the time for each of the Defendants to respond
to the First Amended Class Action Complaint;

27

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate as follows:

28

Defendants shall each have up to and including February 3, 2012, to answer or otherwise

COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO

2.

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
11-CV-4084-PJH

1
2

respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

3
4

Dated: December 28, 2011

5
6
7

/s/ Ray A. Sardo
RAY A. SARDO (245421)

8

Attorney for Defendants
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC; and
SONY NETWORK ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL
LLC

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
MICHELLE C. DOOLIN (179445)
RAY A. SARDO (245421)
NICHOLAS J. ECHEVESTRE (273747)

Dated: December 28, 2011

EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
SEAN P. REIS (184044)
JAY EDELSON (PRO HAC VICE)
ARI J. SCHARG (PRO HAC VICE)
RAFEY S. BALABANIAN (PRO HAC VICE)
WILLIAM C. GRAY (PRO HAC VICE)
/s/ Sean P. Reis
Sean P. Reis (184044)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DANIEL RODRIGUEZ

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO

3.

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
11-CV-4084-PJH

ISTRIC
ES D
T

RT
U
O

T
HON. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON C
TA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

hyllis J.

Judge P

ER

H

7

R NIA

ERED
O ORD
IT IS S

n

Hamilto

FO

UNIT
ED

6

RT

5

NO

4

January 3, 2012
DATED: December
, 2011

LI

3

A

2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED.

S

1

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO

4.

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
11-CV-4084-PJH

1

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

2

I, Ray A. Sardo, attest that concurrence in the filing of this STIPULATION AND

3

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury that the

5

foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 28th day of December, 2011, at San Francisco,

6

California.

7
8

/S/ Ray A. Sardo
Ray A. Sardo

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
SAN FRA NCI S CO

5.

STIP. EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
11-CV-4084-PJH