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)

Download PDF
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?