Freeza et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 39

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte granting 38 Stipulation(rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2013)

Download PDF
Case5:12-cv-00237-RMW Document38 Filed02/13/13 Page1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 EDWARD D. JOHNSON (SBN 189475) wjohnson@mayerbrown.com ERIC B. EVANS (SBN 232476) eevans@mayerbrown.com JONATHAN A. HELFGOTT (SBN 278969) jhelfgott@mayerbrown.com MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2000 Facsimile: (650) 331-2060 7 8 Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION RACHEL FREZZA and MAURO RODRIGUEZ, on their own behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME Judge: Honorable Ronald M. Whyte Initial Complaint Filed: January 13, 2012 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW Case5:12-cv-00237-RMW Document38 Filed02/13/13 Page2 of 5 1 2 3 Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 6-1(b) and 6-2(a), this stipulated request is entered into between Counsel for Plaintiffs Rachel Frezza and Mauro Rodriguez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”). 4 WHEREAS, Google served its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint on 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 January 28, 2013 (Dkt. 37); WHEREAS, the parties agreed that the hearing on Google’s Motion to Dismiss would take place on March 15, 2013; WHEREAS, when Google filed its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, a briefing schedule was automatically set that contradicted the parties’ previously agreed-upon briefing schedule (Dkt. 33); 12 WHEREAS, under the parties’ previously agreed-upon briefing schedule (Dkt 33), 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiffs’ Response is not due until February 27, 2013 and Google’s Reply would not be due until Wednesday, March 20, 2013; and WHEREAS, under the agreed-upon briefing schedule, Google’s Reply is not due until after the noticed hearing date; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the parties jointly request that the hearing on Google’s Motion to Dismiss be adjourned until April 19, 2013 at 9:00 a.m, or a later 20 21 22 23 date at the Court’s convenience, and that the briefing schedule reflected in Docket No. 33 be recognized as controlling. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a)(2), the parties state that on February 2, 2012, 24 Plaintiffs agreed to extend Google’s time to respond to the Complaint to March 16, 2012; on 25 March 30, 2012, the parties agreed to extend Plaintiffs’ time to file their Opposition to Google’s 26 Motion to Dismiss until April 20, 2012, and Google’s time to file its Reply until May 4, 2012; on 27 May 10, 2012, the parties stipulated and requested that the hearing on Google’s motion to 28 -1STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW Case5:12-cv-00237-RMW Document38 Filed02/13/13 Page3 of 5 1 dismiss the complaint would be adjourned until June 15, 2012; on August 20, 2012, the parties 2 agreed that any case management conference would be adjourned until after the Court ruled on 3 Google’s Motion to Dismiss; on December 13, 2012, the parties stipulated to enlarge Google’s 4 time to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint to January 22, 2013, and agreed that if 5 6 Google’s Response to the First Amended Complaint were not an answer, but rather a motion 7 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12, then (i) Plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion would be filed no 8 later than thirty (30) days from the date of service of that motion; and (ii) Google’s reply would 9 be filed no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of Plaintiffs’ opposition; and 10 11 on December 20, 2013, the parties stipulated that (i) Plaintiffs would have until and including December 27, 2012 to file the First Amended Complaint, (ii) Google would have until and 12 including January 28, 2013 to respond to the First Amended Complaint; and (iii) in the event that 13 14 Google’s response was a motion pursuant to Rule 12, Plaintiff’s opposition to that motion would 15 be filed no later than thirty (30) days from the date of service of that motion, and Google’s reply 16 would be filed no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of Plaintiffs’ 17 opposition. 18 19 IT IS SO STIPULATED AND REQUESTED DATED: February 13, 2012 MAYER BROWN LLP 20 By: s/ Edward D. Johnson Edward D. Johnson (SBN 189475) Eric B. Evans (SBN 232476) Jonathan A. Helfgott (SBN 278969) Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: February 13, 2012 SIPRUT PC By: /s/ Joseph J. Siprut Joseph J. Siprut (Pro Hac Vice) Todd C. Atkins (SBN 208879) -2STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW Case5:12-cv-00237-RMW Document38 Filed02/13/13 Page4 of 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rachel Frezza and Mauro Rodriguez 1 2 3 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 Plaintiff, Joseph J. Siprut. /s/ Edward D. Johnson Edward D. Johnson 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME CASE NO. 5:12-CV-00237-RMW Case5:12-cv-00237-RMW Document38 Filed02/13/13 Page5 of 5 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED THAT: 3 4 5 6 7 1. The hearing on Google’s Motion to Dismiss shall be adjourned to April 19, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. 2. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Google’s Motion to Dismiss shall be filed no later than February 27, 2013, and Google’s Reply shall be filed no later than twenty-one days from the date of service of Plaintiffs’ Opposition. 8 9 10 DATED: February 14, 2013 ______________________________ HON. RONALD M. WHYTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER 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?