Peter Schuman et al v. Microchip Technology Incorporated et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting #36 Stipulation Enlarging Plaintiff's Time to Respond to Docket No. #33 MOTION to Dismiss. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2017)

Download PDF
1 Michael Rubin (SBN 80618) Connie K. Chan (SBN 284230) 2 Raphael N. Rajendra (SBN 255096) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 3 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 4 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 5 6 7 8 Cliff Palefsky (SBN 77683) Keith Ehrman (SBN 106985) 9 MCGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY 535 Pacific Avenue 10 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 421-9292 11 Facsimile: (415) 403-0202 12 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 PETER SCHUMAN, an individual, and 18 WILLIAM COPLIN, an individual, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others 19 similarly situated, 20 21 Plaintiffs, Case No. 4:16-CV-05544-HSG CLASS ACTION STIPULATION AND ORDER ENLARGING PLAINTIFFS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS v. 22 MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, a corporation; ATMEL 23 CORPORATION, a corporation; and ATMEL CORPORATION U.S. SEVERANCE 24 GUARANTEE BENEFIT PROGRAM, an employee benefit plan, 25 Defendants 26 [Civ. L.R. 6-2] Hearing Date: June 22, 2017 Time: 2:00 p.m. Ctrm.: 2, Floor 4 Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Action Filed: September 29, 2016 Trial Date: Not yet set 27 28 STIPULATION ENLARGING PLS.’ TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS, #4:16-CV-05544-HSG Plaintiffs Peter Schuman and William Coplin (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants 1 2 Microchip Technology, Inc., Atmel Corporation, and Atmel Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee 3 Benefit Program (collectively “Defendants”), herein referred to collectively as the “Parties,” hereby 4 stipulate, by and through their respective attorneys of record, as follows: WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended 5 6 Complaint on April 28, 2017 (Dkt. 33); WHEREAS, on April 28, 2017, Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in 7 8 the related case Berman, et al. v. Microchip Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-CV-01864-HSG 9 (N.D. Cal.), in which the plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel representing Plaintiffs in this 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 matter; WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ oppositions to Defendants’ motions to dismiss in both cases are currently due May 12, 2017; WHEREAS, Defendants agree to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to both motions to dismiss to and including May 31, 2017; and WHEREAS, the stipulated extension of time for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss will not affect any other dates or deadlines in this case; THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE that Plaintiffs’ time to respond to 18 Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 33) is extended up to and including May 31, 2017. The hearing 19 on the motion will remain set for June 22, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as this Court is 20 available. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted, Dated: May 8, 2017 /s/Michael Rubin Michael Rubin ALTSHULER BERZON LLP Michael Rubin Connie K. Chan Raphael N. Rajendra Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 1 STIPULATION ENLARGING PLS.’ TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS, #4:16-CV-05544-HSG 1 MCGUI INN, HILLS SMAN & PA ALEFSKY Cliff Pa alefsky Keith Eh hrman 535 Pac cific Avenue e San Fran ancisco, CA 9 94133 Telepho one: (415) 42 21-9292 Facsimi (415) 403-0202 ile: 2 3 4 5 Attorney for Plaint and the Proposed C ys tiffs Class 6 7 Dated May 8, 20 d: 017 8 9 /s/Mark G. Kisicki k Mark G. Kisicki k (E-signa ature authori ized on May 8, 2017) y OGLET TREE, DEAK KINS, NASH SMOAK & H, K STEWA ART, P.C. Mark G Kisicki (CA SBN 1500 G. A 057) sicki@oglet treedeakins.c com 2415 Ea Camelbac Road, Su 800 ast ck uite Phoenix Arizona 85 x, 5016 Telepho 602.778 one: 8.3700 Fax: 602 2.778.3750 10 11 12 13 16 Mark Sc chmidtke chmidtke@ o ogletreedeak 56 S. W Washington S Street, Suite 3 302 Valpara aiso, IN 4638 83 Telepho 219.242 one: 2.8668 Fax: 219 9.242.8669 17 Attorney for Defen ys ndants 14 15 18 19 PUR RSUANT TO STIPULA O ATION, IT IS SO ORDE I ERED. 20 21 22 Dated May 9, 20 d: 017 _ __________ ___________ __________ _____ T Hon. Ha The aywood S. G Gilliam, Jr. U United State District Ju es udge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ST TIPULATION ENLARGING PLS.’ TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMIS #4:16-CV-0 G D N SS, 05544-HSG 1 DECLA ARATION OF MICHA O AEL RUBIN IN SUPPO N ORT OF ST TIPULATIO ON 2 I, Michael Rubin, dec clare as follo ows: 3 1. I am a membe in good sta a er anding of the bar of the State of Cali e ifornia and a one of am 4 the co ounsel of rec cord for Plai intiffs Peter Schuman an William C nd Coplin (colle ectively “Pla aintiffs”) in 5 the ab bove-caption case. I am also one of the couns of record for Plaintiff Robin Ber ned a sel d ffs rman, Bo 6 Kang Khashayar Mirfakhrae Thang Va Vu, Donn Viera-Cas g, r ei, an na stillo, Girish Ramesh, Pa atrick 7 Hanle Ilana Sht ey, ternshain and Mandy Sc chwarz in the related case Berman, e al. v. Micro e et ochip 8 Techn nology, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-C , e CV-01864-HS (N.D. Ca SG al.). I make this declara ation in 9 suppo of the Parties’ stipula request to enlarge th time for P ort ated he Plaintiffs to r respond to D Defendants’ 10 motio to dismiss The facts set forth in this declarat on s. tion I know t be true of my own pe to f ersonal 11 know wledge, excep where stat to be bas on inform pt ted sed mation and b belief. 12 2. Th procedura history of this case, in he al ncluding prio time modi or ifications, is set out in 13 the Court’s Decem C mber 22, 2016 Order on the Parties’ Joint Stipul n ’ lation to Wit thdraw Defe endants’ 14 Motio to Dismis and for Pl on ss laintiffs to Fi Amended Complaint Dkt. 27. P ile d t. Pursuant to t that 15 Stipu ulation and Order, Plainti filed an Amended C O iffs Complaint on March 31, 2017. Dkt. 2 n 29. 16 17 18 3. On April 28, 2017, Defend n 2 dants filed a motion to d dismiss Plain ntiffs’ compl laint in this action Dkt. 33. That same day, Defenda also file a motion t dismiss th complaint in Berman. n. d ants ed to he t . 4. Pu ursuant to Ci Local Ru 7-3(a), P ivil ule Plaintiffs’ op ppositions to Defendants’ motions to 19 dismi in both ca are curr iss ases rently due May 12, 2017 Due to pre M 7. eexisting wo obligatio ork ons, 20 Plain ntiffs’ counse are unable to file both oppositions by May 12, 2017. el e s , 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. I conferred wi counsel for Defendan and Defe c ith f nts, endants agre to extend t deadline ee the for Pl laintiffs to re espond to bo motions to dismiss to and includi May 31, 2017. oth t o ing , 6. To the best of my knowled the requ o f dge, uested time m modification will have n effect on n no the sc chedule for the case. t I declare under penalt of perjury that the fore u ty y egoing is tru and correc to the best of my ue ct t know wledge. Exec cuted at San Francisco, California, o May 8, 20 C on 017. / Michael R /s/ Rubin_____ _____ Michael R Rubin 3 ST TIPULATION ENLARGING PLS.’ TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMIS #4:16-CV-0 G D N SS, 05544-HSG

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?