Perron et al v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 11

STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Defendant's Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint by 4/30/2010 re 10 Stipulation. Signed by Judge James Ware on 4/20/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 HOWARD HOLDERNESS (SBN 169814) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.442.1000 Facsimile: 415.442.1001 E-mail: hholderness@morganlewis.com KRISTOFOR T. HENNING (PAB 85047) (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) FRANCO A. CORRADO (PAB 91436) (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) SHEVON L. SCARAFILE (PAB 206552) (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215.963.5000 Facsimile: 215.963.5001 E-mail: khenning@morganlewis.com Attorneys for Defendant HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MICHAEL F. RAM (SBN 104805) RAM & OLSON LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-433-4949 Facsimile: 415-433-7311 Email: mram@ramolson.com MARC H. EDELSON (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 45 W. Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone: 215-230-8043 Facsimile: 215-230-8735 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com JOHN A. MACORETTA (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) SPECTOR, ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-496-0300 Facsimile: 215-496-6611 Email: jmacoretta@srkw-law.com S UNIT ED 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Attorneys for Plaintiffs ISTRIC ES D TC AT T UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAN JOSE DIVISION NORMAND PERRON, and G. DAVID HATFIELD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Case No. 10-695 (JW) ER N F D IS T IC T O R 4/20/2010 JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANT'S TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No. 10-695 JW Joint Stipulation Extending Defendant's Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint A C LI NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FO re mes Wa Judge Ja R NIA O IT IS S ORDER ED 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 Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), the undersigned counsel of record for Plaintiffs Normand Perron and G. David Hatfield ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company ("Defendant") stipulate and agree to extend the time for Defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' initial Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") as follows: WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the Complaint on February 18, 2010; WHEREAS, Defendant executed and returned a waiver of service of the Complaint on February 23, 2010; WHEREAS, absent extension, Defendant's deadline to answer, move or otherwise respond is April 23, 2010; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that the time for Defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint shall be extended by seven (7) days until April 30, 2010, and such extension is effective without Court approval pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a); WHEREAS, the parties have not agreed to any prior extensions of time in this action; WHEREAS, this stipulated extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by the Court; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by the parties, that Defendant will be permitted until April 30, 2010 to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Dated: April 16, 2010 By: MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP /s/ Kristofor T. Henning Kristofor T. Henning Attorneys for Defendant HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Dated: April 16, 2010 RAM & OLSON LLP EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. By: /s/ John A. Macoretta John A. Macoratta Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 Case No. 10-695 JW Joint Stipulation Extending Defendant's Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint

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?