Donohue v. Apple, Inc.
Filing
53
STIPULATION AND ORDER 52 for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint. Motion Hearing set for 11/2/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Ronald M. Whyte. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 7/13/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Kathryn S. Diemer, Esq. SBN 133977
DIEMER, WHITMAN & CARDOSI, LLP
75 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 290
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 971-6270
kdiemer@diemerwhitman.com
Edward S. Zusman (SBN 154366)
Kevin K. Eng (SBN 209036)
MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON, LLP
465 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 438-4515
ezusman@mzclaw.com
keng@mzclaw.com
Alex Stepick (Pro Hac Vice)
Mark Bulgarelli (Pro Hac Vice)
PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
505 N. LaSalle Suite 350
Chicago, IL 60654
312-787-2717
markb@progressivelaw.com
alex@progressivelaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
16
17
18
DANIEL DONOHUE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case No. 5:11-cv-05337 RMW
Plaintiff,
JOINT STIPULATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED]
ORDER
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
[N.D. CAL. CIVIL LR 6-2]
Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
Complaint Filed: November 3, 2011
Trial Date: None
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED]
ORDER
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05337-RMW
sf-3152892
1
2
3
4
5
Pursuant to Northern District Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2(a), Plaintiff and defendant Apple
Inc. (“Apple”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Apple’s motion to
dismiss;
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2012, the parties stipulated for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended
6
Complaint (“SAC”) on or before July 11, 2012, and for Apple to answer or otherwise plead in
7
response thereto by August 1, 2012;
8
9
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred, and have agreed to extend Plaintiff’s
time to file the SAC in order to allow the parties additional time to amend or supplement the
10
mediation protective order entered to allow Plaintiff to rely on confidential documents in
11
connection with the SAC;
12
13
14
WHEREAS, the parties also conferred and agreed to extend Apple’s time to plead or
otherwise respond to the SAC;
WHEREAS, this is the second stipulation and request to extend time related to the SAC,
15
and the first stipulation and request to extend time related to the SAC for the stated reason, and
16
will not otherwise effect or alter any deadline set by this Court;
17
18
WHEREAS, facts and circumstances pertaining to the above-mentioned stipulations are
described in the Stepick Declaration filed contemporaneously herewith;
19
NOW THEREFORE, the parties stipulate as follows:
20
1.
Plaintiff’s time to file the SAC is extended to and including August 1, 2012.
21
2.
Apple’s time to plead or otherwise respond to the SAC is extended to and
22
23
including August 29, 2012.
3.
24
25
filed on or before September 26, 2012.
4.
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s opposition to any motion filed by Apple in response to the SAC shall be
Apple’s reply brief in support of any motion in response to the SAC, shall be filed
on or before October 17, 2012.
5.
A hearing on Apple’s responsive motion, if any, shall be set for November 2, 2012
at 9:00 a.m.
JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05337-RMW
sf-3152892
2
1
2
3
6.
If Apple files a responsive motion to the SAC, Apple shall not be obligated to
answer the SAC until after the Court rules on Apple’s motion.
Dated: July 6, 2012
4
5
6
PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS
STUART C. PLUNKETT
SUZANNA P. BRICKMAN
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By:
7
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.
8
9
/s/ Penelope A. Preovolos
Penelope A. Preovolos
Dated: July 6, 2012
10
KATHRYN DIEMER
DIEMER, WHITMER & CARDOSI LLP
KEVIN ENG
EDWARD ZUSMAN
MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP
11
12
MARK BULGARELLI(Pro Hac Vice)
ALEX STEPICK (Pro Hac Vice)
PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
13
14
15
By:
16
/s/ Alex Stepick
Alex Stepick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DANIEL DONOHUE
17
18
[PROPOSED] ORDER
19
20
21
22
23
Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July ______, 2012
_________________________
Honorable Ronald Whyte
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 5:11-CV-05337-RMW
sf-3152892
3
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?