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)

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
6 [e-mail]
7
8 Cliff Palefsky (SBN 77683)
Keith Ehrman (SBN 106985)
9 MCGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY
535 Pacific Avenue
10 San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: [phone]
11 Facsimile: [phone]
12 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

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 [phone]
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)
mark.ki 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
mark.sc
chmidtke@ o
ogletreedeak
kins.com
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