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)

Download PDF
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?