Waidzunas et al v. Hewlet-Packard Co

Filing 13

STIPULATION AND ORDER Enlarging Time for Hewlett-Packard Co. To Respond To Complaint re 9 Stipulation. Signed by Judge James Ware on 2/6/2009. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2009)

UNIT ED

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
MORGAN, L E W I S & B O C K I U S LLP
A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W PHILADELPHIA

ROBERT A. PARTICELLI (PAB 82651) (Pro Hac Vice) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 215.963.5001 E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

ER

N

C OF D IS T IC T R 2/6/2009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE WAIDZUNAS, BRENT WEST, MICHAEL MANN, TYLER BURGERT, CHI LOK LEUNG, and BRIAN ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaint iffs, vs. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant.

JW Case No. 08-cv-05081-HRL STIPULATION ENLARGING TIME FOR HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

28
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR HP TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT (08-C V-05081-HRL)

A

LI

FO

HOWARD HOLDERNESS (SBN 169814) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415.442.1001 E-mail: [e-mail]

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

mes Wa Judge Ja

re

R NIA

OO IT IS S

RDERE

D

RT U O

NO

RT

H

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

WHEREAS, this case is one of several federal actions that appear to arise out of similar facts and circumstances, and to raise substantially similar issues; WHEREAS, a number of these other federal actions have been marked related to one another pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12; WHEREAS, Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP"), a defendant in several of these alreadyrelated actions, has filed today a motion seeking relat ionship of the above-capt ioned matter with Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., et al., No. 08-cv-04332-JW; WHEREAS, the Honorable James Ware, who is presiding over the already-related actions, has scheduled a Case Management Conference for February 23, 2009 that will address, among other issues, the filing of an amended complaint that would supersede the individual complaints currently on file in the already-related actions and, potentially, the operative complaint in the above-captioned action as well; WHEREAS, requiring HP to respond to the operative complaint in this action could result in the unnecessary expenditure of private and judicial resources; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and HP, through their designated counsel of record that, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6.1(a), HP is not required to respond to the operative complaint in this action except on twenty (20) days written notice by Plaintiff.

2

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR HP TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT (08-CV05081-HRL)

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

Dated: January 9, 2009

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP /s/ Robert A. Particelli ROBERT A. PARTICELLI, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

Dated: January 9, 2009

SEEGER WEISS LLP /s/ Jonathan Shub JONATHAN SHUB, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Plaintiffs LANCE WAIDZUNAS, BRENT WEST, MICHAEL MANN, TYLER BURGERT, CHI LOK LEUNG, AND BRIAN ROBINSON

3

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR HP TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT (08-CV05081-HRL)