Hatfield et al v. DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc.
Filing
41
ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 38 Stipulation (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
VINCENT M. SPOHN, Bar No. 09334
vms@vspohnlaw.com
LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT M. SPOHN, A.P.C.
1005 Jefferson Street
Napa, CA 94559.0748
Telephone:
707.255.1885
Facsimile:
707.255.0974
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SANDRA HATFIELD, LAUREL ANTONUCCI,
and MAUREEN PATRICIA MURPHY
THEODORA R. LEE, Bar No. 129892
tlee@littler.com
KAI-CHING CHA, Bar No. 218738
kcha@littler.com
ALEXIS A. SOHRAKOFF, Bar No. 273410
asohrakoff@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, California 94108.2693
Telephone:
415.433.1940
Facsimile:
415.399.8490
Attorneys for Defendant
RENAL TREATMENT CENTERS –
CALIFORNIA, INC., erroneously sued as DaVITA
HEALTHCARE PARTNERS INC.
15
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19
20
SANDRA HATFIELD, an individual;
LAUREL ANTONUCCI, an individual;
and MAUREEN PATRICIA MURPHY, an
individual,
21
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 13-CV-05206 SBA
STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE THEIR
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT and
[PROPOSED] ORDER
22
v.
Dept.:
Judge:
23
24
Courtroom 1 - 4th Floor
Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong
DaVITA HEALTHCARE PARTNERS,
INC.; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Complaint Filed:
25
October 4, 2013
Defendant.
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street
20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
415.433.1940
STIP. FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEFT'S TO RESPOND TO 3RD AM COMPL
CASE NO. 13-CV-05206 SBA
1
Plaintiffs Sandra Hatfield, Laurel Antonucci and Maureen Patricia Murphy
2
("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Renal Treatment Centers - California, Inc., erroneously sued as DaVita
3
Healthcare Partners Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through its respective counsel of record, hereby
4
stipulate and agree as follows:
5
6
1. WHEREAS, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' original Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6);
7
2. WHEREAS, this Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
8
Complaint with leave to amend and ordered Plaintiffs to file their First Amended Complaint
9
consistent with the Court's rulings by June 9, 2014 and to meet and confer regarding the sufficiency
10
of Plaintiffs' amended allegations;
11
3. WHEREAS, the parties stipulated twice to continue the deadline to respond to
12
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint to give the parties time to meaningfully meet and confer and to
13
decide whether to participate in private mediation;
14
15
4. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs timely filed their Second Amended Complaint on July 17,
2014;
16
5. WHEREAS, the parties again stipulated twice to continue the deadline to August
17
27, 2014 for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint or alternatively, for
18
Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint, to give the parties time to meaningfully meet and
19
confer with respect to Plaintiffs’ amended allegations;
20
21
22
23
6. WHEREAS, based on the parties’ meet and confer process, Plaintiffs have agreed
to file a Third Amended Complaint;
7. WHEREAS, the Law Offices of Vincent M. Spohn are located in downtown Napa,
California and sustained damage due to the recent earthquake;
24
8. WHEREAS, due to the damage sustained in the earthquake, the parties have
25
agreed that Plaintiffs may file their Third Amended Complaint on Friday, August 29, 2014 and
26
Defendant's deadline to file an Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
27
shall be in accordance with applicable Rules in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the
28
Northern District Court's Local Rules.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street
20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
415.433.1940
STIP. FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEFT'S TO RESPOND TO 3RD AM COMPL
1.
CASE NO. C 13-CV-05206 SBA
1
2
9. WHEREAS, the parties' request is not made for the purpose of delay or any other
improper purpose.
3
THEREFORE,
4
Pursuant to Rule 6-1 (a) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
5
Northern District of California, the parties hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file
6
their Third Amended Complaint from August 27, 2014 to August 29, 2014 and Defendant's deadline
7
to file an Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint shall be in
8
accordance with applicable Rules in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Northern
9
District Court's Local Rules.
10
11
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: August 27, 2014
12
/s/ Kai-Ching Cha
KAI-CHING CHA
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
RENAL TREATMENT CENTERS –
CALIFORNIA, INC., erroneously sued as
DAVITA HEALTHCARE PARTNERS INC.
13
14
15
16
17
Dated: August 27, 2014
18
/s/ Vincent M. Spohn
VINCENT M. SPOHN
LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT M. SPOHN,
A.P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiffs SANDRA
HATFIELD, LAUREL ANTONUCCI, and
MAUREEN PATRICIA MURPHY
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street
20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
415.433.1940
STIP. FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEFT'S TO RESPOND TO 3RD AM COMPL
2.
CASE NO. C 13-CV-05206 SBA
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
The Court, having considered the Parties’ stipulation, hereby grant the parties' request
3
to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs’ to file a Third Amended Complaint from August 27, 2014 to
4
August 29, 2014 and the deadline for Defendant to file its Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’
5
Third Amended Complaint shall be in accordance with applicable Rules in the Federal Rules of Civil
6
Procedure and/or the Northern District Court’s Local Rules.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated:
8/29/2014
_______________
HONORABLE SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG
United States District Court Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street
20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
415.433.1940
STIP. FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEFT'S TO RESPOND TO 3RD AM COMPL
3.
CASE NO. C 13-CV-05206 SBA
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?