Robin Berman et al v. Microchip Technology Incorporated et al

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 17 Stipulation Enlarging Plaintiffs Time to Respond re 9 MOTION to Dismiss. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2017)

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
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18
19
20

ROBIN BERMAN, BO KANG,
KHASHAYAR MIRFAKHRAEI, THANG
VAN VU, DONNA VIERA-CASTILLO,
GIRISH RAMESH, PATRICK HANLEY,
ILANA SHTERNSHAIN and MANDY
SCHWARZ,

21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 5:17-CV-01864-HSG
STIPULATION AND ORDER ENLARGING
PLAINTIFFS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[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.

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY
INCORPORATED, a corporation; ATMEL
CORPORATION, a corporation; and ATMEL
CORPORATION U.S. SEVERANCE
Action Filed: September 29, 2016
GUARANTEE BENEFIT PROGRAM, an
Trial Date: Not yet set
employee benefit plan,

26
Defendants
27
28

STIPULATION ENLARGING PLS.’ TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS, #5:17-CV-01864-HSG

Plaintiffs Robin Berman, Bo Kang, Khashayar Mirfakhraei, Thang Van Vu, Donna Viera-

1
2

Castillo, Girish Ramesh, Patrick Hanley, Ilana Shternshain and Mandy Schwarz (collectively

3

“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Microchip Technology, Inc., Atmel Corporation, and Atmel

4

Corporation U.S. Severance Guarantee Benefit Program (collectively “Defendants”), herein referred

5 to collectively as the “Parties,” hereby stipulate, by and through their respective attorneys of record,
6 as follows:
WHEREAS, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint on April 28, 2017

7

8 (Dkt. 9);
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2017, Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in

9

10 the related case Schuman, et al. v. Microchip Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:16-CV-05544-HSG
11

(N.D. Cal.), in which the plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel representing Plaintiffs in this

12

matter;

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

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

20

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9) is extended up to and including May 31, 2017. The hearing

21

on the motion will remain set for June 22, 2017 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as this Court is

22

available.
Respectfully submitted,

23
24
25
26
27
28

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

1
STIPULATION ENLARGING PLS.’ TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS, #5:17-CV-01864-HSG

San Fran
ancisco, California 94108
8
Telepho
one: (415) 42
21-7151
Facsimi [phone]
ile:

1
2

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:

3
4
5
6
7

Attorney for Plaint and the Proposed C
ys
tiffs
Class

8
9

Dated May 8, 20
d:
017

10

/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

11
12
13
14
15

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

16
17
18

Attorney for Defen
ys
ndants

19
20
21

PUR
RSUANT TO STIPULA
O
ATION, IT IS SO ORDE
I
ERED.

22
23
24

Dated May 19, 2017
d:
2

_
__________
___________
__________
_____
T Hon. Ha
The
aywood S. G
Gilliam, Jr.
U
United State District Ju
es
udge

25
26
27
28
2
ST
TIPULATION ENLARGING PLS.’ TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMIS #5:17-CV-0
G
D
N
SS,
01864-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 Robin Berman, Bo Kang, Kha
n
o
ashayar Mirf
fakhraei, Th
hang Van Vu
u,

5

Donn Viera-Cas
na
stillo, Girish Ramesh, Pa
h
atrick Hanley Ilana Shte
y,
ernshain and Mandy Sch
d
hwarz

6

(colle
ectively “Pla
aintiffs”) in the above-ca
t
aptioned case I am also one of the c
e.
o
counsel of re
ecord for

7

Plain
ntiffs Peter Schuman and William Co
d
oplin in the r
related case S
Schuman, et al. v. Micro
t
ochip

8

Techn
nology, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:16-C
,
e
CV-05544-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
13
14

2.

On April 28, 2017, Defend
n
2
dants filed a motion to d
dismiss Plain
ntiffs’ compl
laint in this

action Dkt. 9. That same da Defendan also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint i Schuman.
n.
T
ay,
nts
d
o
e
in
.
3.

Pu
ursuant to Ci Local Ru 7-3(a), P
ivil
ule
Plaintiffs’ op
ppositions to Defendants’ motions to

15

dismi in both ca are curr
iss
ases
rently due May 12, 2017 Due to pre
M
7.
eexisting wo obligatio
ork
ons,

16

Plain
ntiffs’ counse are unable to file both oppositions by May 12, 2017.
el
e
s
,

17
18

4.

I conferred wi counsel for Defendan and Defe
c
ith
f
nts,
endants agre to extend t deadline
ee
the
e

for Pl
laintiffs to re
espond to bo motions to dismiss to and includi May 31, 2017.
oth
t
o
ing
,

19

5.

Th have be no previo time mo difications i this case.
here
een
ous
in

20

6.

To the best of my knowled the requ
o
f
dge,
uested time m
modification will have n effect on
n
no

21
22
23

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.

24
25

/ Michael R
/s/
Rubin_____
_____
Michael R
Rubin

26
27
28
3
ST
TIPULATION ENLARGING PLS.’ TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMIS #5:17-CV-0
G
D
N
SS,
01864-HSG