Falk et al v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Filing 66

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 65 Stipulation Regarding Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and NNA's Response. Amended Pleadings due by 6/6/2018. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MICHAEL J. STORTZ (SBN 139386) michael.stortz@dbr.com DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2235 Telephone: 415-591-7500 Facsimile: 415-591-7510 MARSHALL L. BAKER (SBN 300987) marshall.baker@dbr.com DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, California 90067-1517 Telephone: 310-203-4000 Facsimile: 310-229-1285 E. PAUL CAULEY (pro hac vice) paul.cauley@dbr.com DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 5400 Dallas, Texas 75201-7367 Telephone: 469-357-2500 Facsimile: 469-327-0860 Attorneys for Defendant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 OAKLAND DIVISION 18 21 MICHELLE FALK, INDHU JAYAVELU, PATRICIA L. CRUZ, DANIELLE TROTTER, CYNTHIA GARRISON, AND AMANDA MACRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 22 Plaintiffs, 19 20 23 24 25 Case No. 4:17-cv-04871-HSG JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NNA’S RESPONSE THERETO; ORDER; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. STORTZ v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant. 26 27 28 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO JOINT STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMEND. COMPL. AND NNA’S RESPONSE THERETO CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04871-HSG 1 Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (“NNA”), Plaintiffs Michelle Falk, Indhu Jayavelu, 2 Patricia L. Cruz, Danielle Trotter, Amanda Macri, and Cynthia Garrison (“Plaintiffs”), and Waldo 3 Leyva (“Leyva”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate 4 to and agree as follows: 5 6 WHEREAS, after filing this action on August 22, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on September 27, 2017 (Dkt. No. 19). 7 WHEREAS, NNA moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FAC on October 26, 2017 (Dkt. No. 35). 8 WHEREAS, following hearing on January 11, 2018, the Court took NNA’s motion to 9 dismiss under submission (Dkt. No. 55). 10 WHEREAS, while NNA’s motion to dismiss was under submission, the parties filed and 11 the Court granted a stipulation to permit the addition of Leyva to this action, following the 12 Court’s ruling on NNA’s then pending Motion to Dismiss. See Dkt. No. 61 (Joint Stipulation to 13 Permit Amendment of Complaint to Add Plaintiff, entered April 17, 2018). 14 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Joint Stipulation to Permit Amendment of Complaint to Add 15 Plaintiff (“Leyva Stipulation”), “Leyva would be permitted to join this action as an additional 16 named Plaintiff via amended complaint after the Court has ruled on [NNA’s then] pending 17 motion to dismiss.” Id. at 2:6-7. Further, the parties agreed that “[i]f Plaintiffs determine to file 18 an amended Complaint that is limited solely to adding Leyva as an additional named Plaintiff, 19 then Defendant will not oppose such amendment.” Id. at 2:7-9. The parties further agreed that 20 “Leyva may not assert any claim for relief or cause of action not asserted by the Plaintiffs in their 21 FAC in this action.” Id. at 2:10-11. Finally, the parties agreed that “Leyva shall be bound by this 22 Court’s ruling on NNA’s [then] pending motion to dismiss in this action and may not assert any 23 claim for relief or cause of action dismissed without leave to amend.” Id. at 2:12-14. 24 25 26 27 28 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO WHEREAS, on May 16, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part NNA’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 62) (“Order Re NNA’s MTD”). WHEREAS, in the Court’s Order Re NNA’s MTD, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file any amended complaint by June 6, 2018. See Order Re NNA’s MTD at 18. WHEREAS, the Court further ordered that “[t]he amended complaint may not add new JOINT STIPULATION -1- CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04871-HSG 1 causes of action or plaintiffs, and the scope of leave to amend extends only to the claims 2 identified [as being dismissed with leave to amend].” Id. 3 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have not yet determined whether they will seek to amend their 4 complaint to address the claims dismissed by the Court with leave to amend, but Plaintiffs intend 5 to amend to add Plaintiff Leyva to this action, pursuant to the Joint Stipulation to Permit 6 Amendment of Complaint to Add Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 61). 7 WHEREAS, such proposed amendment would comply with the restriction of the Leyva 8 Stipulation that Leyva “not assert any claim for relief or cause of action not asserted by the 9 Plaintiffs in their FAC in this action” which would also comply with the Court’s Order that the 10 11 12 Amended Complaint not add any new causes of action; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs will be prepared to file their amended complaint by June 6, 2018, the deadline set forth in the Court’s Order Re NNA’s MTD. 13 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that judicial economy would not be served by NNA 14 filing an Answer to the FAC prior to the time for Plaintiffs’ to file an amended complaint on June 15 6, 2018, and in order to also allow sufficient time for NNA to prepare its response to Plaintiffs’ 16 Second Amended Complaint, NNA shall have thirty (30) days to Answer or otherwise respond to 17 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. 18 19 WHEREAS, the schedule set forth herein will not otherwise impact any deadlines already set by the Court. 20 THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated to and agreed as follows: 21 1. Plaintiffs’ shall file their Second Amended Complaint on or before June 6, 2018; 22 2. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint may not add new causes of action, but may 23 24 25 add Leyva as a Plaintiff in this action; 3. Leyva is bound by the rulings set forth in the Court’s Order Re NNA’s MTD (Dkt. No. 62); 26 4. No other parties may be added by way of the Second Amended Complaint; 27 5. The scope of amendment for Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is otherwise 28 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO JOINT STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMEND. COMPL. AND NNA’S RESPONSE THERETO -2- CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04871-HSG 1 limited to the claims dismissed with leave to amend. Any claim dismissed from the FAC without 2 leave to amend shall not be asserted in the Second Amended Complaint on behalf of any Plaintiff 3 or putative class member; and 4 6. NNA’s deadline to Answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended 5 Complaint is July 6, 2018. 6 Dated: May 30, 2018 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 7 8 By: /s/ Michael J. Stortz Michael J. Stortz Marshall L. Baker E. Paul Cauley, Jr. (pro hac vice) 9 10 Attorneys for Defendant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. 11 12 WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP Dated: May 30, 2018 13 14 15 By: /s/ Gary Mason Gary Mason (pro hac vice) 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 17 Dated: May 30, 2018 CAPSTONE LAW APC 18 19 20 By: /s/ Jordan L. Lurie Jordan L. Lurie 21 Attorney for Waldo Leyva 22 23 24 25 26 Attestation Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), I, Michael J. Stortz, hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from the other signatories to this document. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 30th day of May, 2018 in San Francisco, California. 27 By: /s/ Michael J. Stortz Michael J. Stortz 28 DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO JOINT STIPULATION RE PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMEND. COMPL. AND NNA’S RESPONSE THERETO -3- CASE NO. 4:17-CV-04871-HSG 1 2 ORD DER PURSUANT TO STIPULAT TION, IT IS SO ORDE S ERED. 3 4 Da May 31 2018 ate: 1, H Hon. Haywoo S. Gilliam Jr. od m U UNITED STA ATES DIST TRICT JUDG GE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DRINKER BI IDDLE & REATH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRAN NCISCO JOINT STIPULATIO RE PLAINTI ’ ON IFFS SECOND AMEND. COMPL. AND E NN S RESPONS THERETO NA’ SE -4- CA NO. 4:17-C -04871-HSG ASE CV G

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?