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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Joseph J. Siprut (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]

SIPRUT PC

17 N. State Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Todd C. Atkins
[e-mail]

SIPRUT PC

701 B Street
Suite 1400
San Diego, California 92101
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
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