Falk et al v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 47 Stipulation Re Docket No. 35 . (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 Shimon Yiftach (SBN 277387) shimony@bgandg.com BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990 Los Angeles, CA 90067 T: (424) 322-0322 F: (212) 697-7296 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 [Additional counsel appear on signature page] 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 12 13 14 MICHELLE FALK, INDHU JAYAVELU, PATRICIA L. CRUZ, DANIELLE TROTTER, CYNTHIA GARRISON, AND AMANDA MACRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 15 16 17 18 Case No. 4:17-cv-04871-HSG STIPULATION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS FOR PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs, Date: January 11, 2018 Time: 2:00 p.m. Ctrm: 2 – 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 Pursuant to L.R. 7-1, Plaintiffs Michelle Falk, Indhu Jayavelu, Patricia L. Cruz, Danielle Trotter, Cynthia Garrison, and Amanda Macri (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Nissan”), stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is due on December 1, 2017; WHEREAS, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss raises numerous complex issues; 24 WHEREAS, L.R. 7-3(a) states that “Any opposition.. may not exceed 25 pages of text[;]” 25 26 WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs anticipate that the page limit contained in L.R. 7-3(a) will not allow them to adequately address the issues raised in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; and 27 28 1 1 2 3 4 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that Plaintiffs may file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss of no more than 30 pages. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the Court’s approval, that Plaintiffs may file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss of no more than 30 pages. 5 6 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 DATED: November 27, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Stortz______________ Michael J. Stortz (SBN 139386) Marshall L. Baker (SBN 300987) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 50 Fremont Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2235 T: (415) 591-7500 F: (415) 591-7500 michael.stortz@dbr.com marshall.baker@dbr.com /s/ Shimon Yiftach___________________ Shimon Yiftach (SBN 277387) BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990 Los Angeles, CA 90067 T: (424) 322-0322 F: (212) 697-7296 shimony@bgandg.com Gary E. Mason* WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 305 Washington, D.C. 20016 T: (202) 429-2290 F: (202) 429-2294 gmason@wbmllp.com E. Paul Cauley, Jr.* DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 5400 Dallas, TX 75201-7367 T: (469) 357-2500 F: (469) 327-0860 paul.cauley@dbr.com Lawrence Deutsch* Jeffrey Osterwise* BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 T: (215) 875-3062 F: (215) 875-4604 ldeutsch@bm.net josterwise@bm.net 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 Nicholas A. Migliaccio* Jason S. Rathod* MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302 Washington, DC 20002 T: (202) 470-3520 F: (202 800-2730 nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com 2 3 4 5 6 Gary S. Graifman, Esq.** Jay I. Brody, Esq.** KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977 T: (845) 356-2570 F: (845) 356-4335 ggraifman@kgglaw.com jbrody@kgglaw.com 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 * Admitted pro hac vice ** Motion for admission pro hac vice pending 15 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 DATED: ________________ 11/28/2017 __________________________________________ _ _____ _ __ _____ _ __________ ____ ______________ ____________ _ ____ _ _ THE HO HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. HO S. GILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?