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)
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?