Brazil et al v. Dell Inc.

Filing 97

AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER 75 & 90 Regarding Defendant Dell, Inc.'s Response to Second Amended Complaint. Motion Hearing set for 11/7/2008 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 9/8/8. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857) Roger N. Heller (State Bar No. 215348) Allison S. Elgart (State Bar No. 241901) LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Rachel J. Geman (NY Bar No. RG 0998) (Pro Hac Vice) LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10017-2024 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Daniel M. Hattis (State Bar No. 232141) Angelo Salvatore Parise (State Bar No. 165690) LAW OFFICES OF ANGELO SALVATORE PARISE 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

*E-FILED - 9/8/08*

CHAD BRAZIL and STEVEN SEICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DELL INC. and Does 1-10, Defendant.

Case No. C-07-01700 RMW AMENDED STIPULATION AND [] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT DELL, INC.'S RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

-1-

AMENDED STIPULATION RE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SAC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiffs Chad Brazil and Steven Seick ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Dell Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On July 7, 2008, the Court entered an order granting in part Defendant's

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and strike class allegations. The Court gave Plaintiffs twenty (20) days leave to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). 2. 3. On July 25, 2008 Plaintiffs filed their SAC in this case. Also on July 25, 2008, Plaintiffs and Defendant filed a stipulation and

proposed order regarding Defendant's response to the SAC [Docket No. 75], which included a proposed briefing schedule in the event that Defendant's response to the SAC was by motion. The deadlines included in that briefing schedule were based on the expectation that the Court would hear Defendant's motion, if any, on approximately regular notice (i.e. 35 days). 4. On August 22, 2008, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' SAC

and strike class allegations. The hearing on Defendant's motion is scheduled for November 7, 2008. 5. The scheduled hearing date provides the parties with more time to brief

Defendant's motion than the parties anticipated when they filed their previous stipulation and proposed order on July 25, 2008. Plaintiffs and Defendants therefore ask the Court to adopt the following revised briefing schedule regarding Defendant's pending motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' SAC and strike class allegations, pursuant to which Defendant's reply will still be filed the customary two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing date: a. b. c. Plaintiffs' opposition shall be filed on or before October 3, 2008; Defendant's reply shall be filed on or before October 24, 2008; The hearing on Defendant's motion shall be held on November 7, 2008.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

-2-

AMENDED STIPULATION RE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SAC

9/8