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)
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?