Freeza et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 34

STIPULATION AND ORDER 33 Enlarging Time. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 12/21/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Joseph J. Siprut (admitted Pro Hac Vice) jsiprut@siprut.com SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Tel: 312.588.1440 Fax: 312.427.1850 Todd C. Atkins tatkins@siprut.com SIPRUT PC 701 B Street Suite 1400 San Diego, California 92101 Tel: 619.255.2380 Fax: 619.231.4984 Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Putative Class 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 13 14 15 16 RACHEL FREZZA and MAURO RODRIGUEZ, on their own behalf and all others similarly situated, 17 Plaintiffs, 18 STIPULATION ENLARGING TIME PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-1(b) Judge: Honorable Ronald M. Whyte v. 19 CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW GOOGLE INC., 20 Initial Complaint Filed: January 20, 2012 Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION ENLARGING TIME CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW 1 Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 6-1(b) and 6-2(a), this stipulated request is entered 2 into between Counsel for Plaintiffs Rachel Frezza and Mauro Rodriguez (collectively 3 “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”). The named parties hereby stipulate that 4 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than December 27, 2012, and that 5 6 7 Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than January 28, 2013. 8 WHEREAS, on November 20, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant’s 9 Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, and granted Plaintiffs 30 days to submit an amended 10 11 complaint (Docket No. 31); WHEREAS, the named parties filed a stipulation on December 13, 2012 (Docket No. 32) 12 whereby the parties agreed that Plaintiffs would file their First Amended Complaint on or before 13 14 December 20, 2012; 15 WHEREAS, the Court has not yet entered an Order on the December 13 Stipulation; 16 WHEREAS, the enlargement of time requested herein would serve the convenience of 17 18 19 the parties; and WHEREAS, the enlargement of time sought will not affect the date of any other event or deadline already fixed by Court order; 20 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND REQUESTED that Plaintiffs shall have until, and 22 including, December 27, 2012 to file their First Amended Complaint and that Defendant shall 23 have until, and including, January 28, 2013 to respond to the First Amended Complaint. If 24 Defendant’s response to the Amended Complaint is not an answer, but rather a motion pursuant 25 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, then (i) Plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion shall be filed no later than 30 26 days from the date of service of that motion; and (ii) Defendant’s reply shall be filed no later 27 28 than 21 days from the date of service of Plaintiffs’ opposition. -1STIPULATION ENLARGING TIME CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a)(2), the parties state that on February 2, 2012, 2 Plaintiffs agreed to extend Google’s time to respond to the Complaint to March 16, 2012; on 3 March 30, 2012, the parties agreed to extend Plaintiffs’ time to file their Opposition to Google’s 4 Motion to Dismiss until April 20, 2012, and Google’s time to file its Reply until May 4, 2012; on 5 6 May 10, 2012, the parties stipulated and requested that the hearing on Google’s motion to 7 dismiss the complaint would be adjourned until June 15, 2012; and on August 20, 2012, the 8 parties agreed that any case management conference would be adjourned until after the Court 9 ruled on Google’s Motion to Dismiss. 10 IT IS SO STIPULATED AND REQUESTED 11 12 DATED: December 20, 2012 13 SIPRUT PC By: /s/ 14 15 Joseph J. Siprut Joseph J. Siprut (Pro Hac Vice) Todd C. Atkins (SBN 208879) Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Putative Class 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 DATED: December 20, 2012 MAYER BROWN LLP By: /s/ Jonathan A. Helfgott Edward D. Johnson (SBN 189475) Eric B. Evans (SBN 232476) Jonathan A. Helfgott (SBN 278969) Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. 23 24 25 Filer’s attestation: In compliance with General Order 45(x)(B), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this Stipulation has been obtained from counsel for Defendant, Jonathan A. Helfgott. /s/ Joseph J. Siprut 26 27 28 -2STIPULATION ENLARGING TIME CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED THAT: 3 4 5 (1) Plaintiffs shall have until, and including, December 27, 2012 to file their First Amended Complaint. (2) Google shall have until, and including, January 28, 2013 to respond to Plaintiffs’ First 6 Amended Complaint. 7 8 (3) In the event that Google’s response is a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12, 9 Plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion shall be filed no later than 30 days from the date of 10 service of that motion, and Defendant's reply shall be filed no later than 21 days from the 11 date of service of Plaintiffs’ opposition. 12 13 14 15 DATED: ______________________________ HON. RONALD M. WHYTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION ENLARGING TIME CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW 1 2 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 20, 2012 I electronically filed Stipulation Enlarging Time Pursuant To Local Rule 6-1(b) with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which 4 will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. 5 6 7 s/ Joseph J. Siprut 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION ENLARGING TIME CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW

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?