Noll v. eBay, Inc et al

Filing 37

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Enlarge Page Limits for Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/9/2011. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2011)

7
8
9
10

SHAWN T. LEUTHOLD
([e-mail])
LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN T. LEUTHOLD
1671 The Alameda #303
San Jose, California 95126
Tel: [phone]
Fax:: [phone]

R NIA

. Davila

LI
A
N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

VERA BROOKS
([e-mail])
THOMPSON & BROOKS
412 E. Madison Street, Suite 900
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
(Pro Hac Vice Application Planned)

11
12

ER

d w a rd J

FO

S

6

J u d ge E

H

5

RT

4

TED
GRAN

NO

3

UNIT
ED

2

KEITH R. VERGES ([e-mail])
PARKER D. YOUNG ([e-mail])
RAYMOND E. WALKER ([e-mail]
FIGARI & DAVENPORT, L.L.P.
901 Main Street, Suite 3400
Dallas, Texas 75202
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
(Pro Hac Vice Application Pending)

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
RICHARD NOLL

13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17

SAN JOSE DIVISION
RICHARD NOLL, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

18
19

v.

20

EBAY, INC., EBAY EUROPE S.A.R.L.,
and EBAY INTERNATIONAL AG

21
22
23
24
25

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:11-cv-04585-EJD
STIPULATION TO ENLARGE
PAGE LIMITS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to L. R. 7.12 and 7.4(b), Plaintiff and Defendant eBay, Inc. (“eBay”) file this
stipulation regarding the modification of page limits allowed for Plaintiff’s opposition to eBay’s

26
27
28
STIPULATION TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMITS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

PAGE 1

1

pending motion to dismiss [Docket no. 24]. In that regard, Plaintiff requests an enlargement of

2

the page limits for his opposition and brief in support up to 30 pages, and states:

3

I.

4
5

Pursuant to the parties’ prior stipulation, Plaintiff’s response to eBay’s motion to dismiss

6

is due by December 9, 2011. [Docket no. 33.] This request is made before the due date for

7

Plaintiff’s opposition pursuant to Local Rule 7.4(b).

8
9

Plaintiff needs additional pages to fully respond. In particular, addressing the specifics
relating to several web pages at issue here takes up additional space. In addition, the motion to

10
11
12
13

dismiss raises several distinct legal issues. Plaintiff submits that the briefing in his opposition
will be helpful to the Court in deciding each of the matters presented.
The cumulative effect of the space necessary to address the factual and legal contentions

14

raised by the motion is that Plaintiff will need in excess of the 25-page limit to fully respond.

15

Plaintiff also notes that the Local Rules afford Defendant a total of 40 pages (25 in the motion

16

and 15 in the reply) for presenting its position. Plaintiff seeks 5 additional pages.

17
II.
18
19

Accordingly, Plaintiff and eBay stipulate and request that the page limits for Plaintiff’s

20

opposition be enlarged to 30 pages.

21

AGREED:

22

By: /s/ Raymond E. Walker
Keith R. Verges
Parker D. Young
Raymond E. Walker

23
24

By: /s/ Whitty Somvichian
John C. Dwyer
Whitty Somvichian
James M. Penning
Kara C. Wilson

25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMITS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

PAGE 2

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

3
4

Dated: December 9, 2011

5
6
7
8

United States District Judge
FILERS ATTESTATION:
Pursuant to General Order No. 45, 5X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of
perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.

9
Dated: December 8, 2011

By: /s/ Raymond E. Walker
Raymond E. Walker

10
11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

12
13
14
15

I hereby certify that all counsel of record will be served with a copy of this document via
the Court’s CM/ECF system pursuant to the local rules of this Court, on this 8thh day of
December, 2011.

16
17

/s/ Raymond E. Walker

Raymond E. Walker

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMITS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

PAGE 3