Goldblatt v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 8

ORDER re 7 Stipulation filed by David Goldblatt. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 1/2/2011. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (SBN 119854)
[e-mail]
KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

HORWITZ, HORWITZ &
PARADIS, Attorneys at Law
Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
Mark A. Butler, Esq.
570 7th Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212/986-4501

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17
18
19

DAVID GOLDBLATT,
individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.

20
21
22
23
24

HEWLETT-PACKARD
COMPANY,
A Delaware Corporation.

CASE NO.: CV 11-05779-LHK
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING DEADLINE TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
[MODIFICATIONS BY THE
COURT ARE UNDERLINED]

Defendant.

25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION REGARDING CERTAIN DEADLINES

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff David Goldblatt (“Plaintiff”) filed a class action

2

complaint (the “Complaint”) against Hewlett-Packard Company (“Defendant”) on

3

December 1, 2011 in which Plaintiff asserted claims regarding the software (the

4

“Software”) installed on certain printers manufactured by Defendant (the

5

“Printers”);

6
7

WHEREAS, Defendant’s answer or motion to dismiss the Complaint is
currently due on December 29, 2011;

8

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has indicated to Defendant that Plaintiff intends to

9

serve upon Defendant, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1782(a) (“Section

10

1782(a)”), a letter (the “CLRA Letter”) requesting that Defendant satisfy Plaintiff

11

and the Class’ demands regarding the Software and the Printers (the “Demands”);

12
13

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1782(a), Defendant is afforded 30 days to
respond to the CLRA Letter;

14

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has further indicated to Defendant that, in the event

15

that Defendant does not satisfy the Demands, Plaintiff presently intends to file an

16

amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) to assert, among other things, a

17

claim for monetary damages under California Civil Code § 1770;

18

WHEREAS, in order to streamline the process for Defendant to respond to

19

the CLRA Letter, the filing of a possible Amended Complaint in the event that

20

Defendant does not satisfy the Demands, and Defendant’s response thereto, the

21

Parties have met and conferred regarding a proposed schedule;

22

WHEREAS, neither party has sought any previous time modifications;

23

WHEREAS, the stipulated schedule sought herein will not affect the

24

schedule for the parties’ Case Management Conference, which has been set by the

25

Court.

26

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED

27

THAT:

28

1.

Defendant need not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
2
STIPULATION REGARDING CERTAIN DEADLINES

1
2
3
4
5

2.

Plaintiff will serve the CLRA Letter upon Defendant by no later than

December 23, 2011.
3.

Defendant shall inform Plaintiff as to whether Defendant will meet the

Demands set forth in the CLRA Letter by no later than January 23, 2011.
4.

In the event that Defendant does not agree to meet the Demands set

6

forth in the CLRA Letter, Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint by no later

7

than February 3, 2012.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

5.

Defendant’s answer or motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint

shall be filed by no later than March 2, 2012.
6.

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss shall be filed

by no later than March 30, 2012.
7.

Defendant’s reply in further support of its motion to dismiss shall be

filed by no later than April 13, 2012.
8.

A hearing on any motion to dismiss shall be set for Thursday, May 3,

15

2012 at 1:30 p.m. Should the Defendant file an answer instead of a motion to

16

dismiss on March 2, 2012, the May 3 hearing date shall be vacated.

17
18

Dated: December 23, 2011

KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By: /s/ Paul R. Kiesel
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (SBN 119854)
[e-mail]
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
HORWITZ, HORWITZ &
PARADIS, Attorneys at Law
Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
Mark A. Butler, Esq.
3
STIPULATION REGARDING CERTAIN DEADLINES

570 7th Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

1
2
3
4

Attorneys for Plaintiff

5
6
7

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Dated: December 23, 2011

8

By: /s/ Thomas M. Peterson
Thomas M. Peterson, State Bar No. 96011
[e-mail]
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

OF COUNSEL:
J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
[e-mail]
Kristofor T. Henning (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
[e-mail]
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

20
21
22

Attorneys for Defendant
Hewlett-Packard Co.

23
24

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

25
26
27

DATED: January 2, 2012

_________________________
HON. LUCY H. KOH
U.S.D.J.

28
4
STIPULATION REGARDING CERTAIN DEADLINES