Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp
Filing
76
ORDER GRANTING 75 STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/31/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2017)
1
LEONARDMEYER LLP
Derek J. Meyer (State Bar No.)
5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel: (310) 220-0331
rmeyer@leonardmeyerllp.com
POLSINELLI LLP
Noel S. Cohen (State Bar No. 219645)
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 556-1801
ncohen@polsinelli.com
8
LEONARDMEYER LLP
John P. Killacky (admitted pro hac vice)
120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 943-4888
jkillacky@leonardmeyerllp.com
POLSINELLI PC
Stacy A. Carpenter (admitted pro hac vice)
1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: (303) 572-9300
scarpenter@polsinelli.com
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kelly Brezoczky
POLSINELLI PC
Britton L. St. Onge (admitted pro hac vice)
100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1000
St. Louis, MO 63102
Tel: (314) 889-8000
bstonge@polsinelli.com
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
Attorneys for Defendants Domtar
Corporation and Polsinelli PC
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION
17
KELLY BREZOCZKY, an individual,
18
Plaintiff,
19
v.
20
21
22
23
DOMTAR CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF
KELLY
BREZOCZKY
Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION
DEADLINES
Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila
Courtroom 4, Fifth Floor
(“Plaintiff”)
and
DEFENDANT
DOMTAR
24
CORPORATION (“Defendant”), pursuant to Local Rules 6-2, 7-3 and 7-12, jointly submit this
25
stipulation asking the Court to briefly extend the deadlines for: (1) Plaintiff to file her opposition to
26
Domtar Corporation’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and or Adjudication
27
(“Motion,” ECF No. 63); and (2) Defendant to file its reply in support of the Motion. The proposed
28
new dates below would not impact any other deadlines as described below.
-1STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD
RECITALS
1
2
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, Defendant filed the Motion;
3
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7.3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion is due on
4
5
6
7
8
October 31, 2017;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has requested that Defendant agree to extend Plaintiff’s deadline for filing
the opposition to the Motion by one (1) day to November 1, 2017;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has been diligent in preparing its opposition to the Motion but requires
additional time for various reason, including but not limited to:
9
a. Plaintiff and former Defendant Polsinelli PC have been engaged in settlement negotiations
10
that successfully resulted in the execution of a settlement agreement and the filing on
11
October 27, 2017, of a stipulation dismissing all claims against Polsinelli PC with prejudice,
12
which was entered by this Court on October 30, 2017 (ECF No. 74);
13
b. Counsel for Plaintiff is lead trial counsel for the plaintiff in a matter styled Gregory Ingalls
14
et al v. Spotify USA Inc., 3:16-cv-03533-WHA, pending before the Honorable William
15
Alsup in the San Francisco Division of this Court. On October 27, 2017, the parties were
16
required to serve their pre-trial disclosures in this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
17
26(a)(3)(C).
18
c. Also in the Ingalls matter, the parties are required to file a joint proposed final pretrial order
19
and other pretrial materials on October 31, 2017, in advance of the pretrial conference set
20
for November 8, 2017.
21
22
23
24
25
26
WHEREAS, Defendant has agreed to grant Plaintiff one (1) additional day to file her
opposition to the Motion on November 1, 2017;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(c), provided this stipulation is granted, Defendant’s
reply in support of the Motion would be due on November 8, 2017;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has agreed to provide Defendant with one (1) additional day to file its
reply in support of the Motion on November 9, 2017;
27
28
-2STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD
WHEREAS, the dispositive motion deadlines in this case have not been extended with respect
1
2
to the Domtar Motion;1
3
WHEREAS, there is good cause for extending the deadlines as set forth herein;
4
WHEREAS, extending this deadline would not prejudice any party;
5
WHEREAS, extending the deadlines as set forth herein would not affect any other dates in the
6
Amended Pretrial Order in the event the Court accepts the proposed new deadlines below.
STIPULATION
7
8
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties that:
9
A. Plaintiff shall file her opposition to the Motion on November 1, 2017; and
B. Defendant shall file its reply in support of the Motion on November 9, 2017.
10
11
Dated: October 30, 2017
12
LEONARDMEYER LLP
By: /s/ Derek J. Meyer
Derek J. Meyer
Attorneys for Plaintiff
13
14
15
16
Dated: October 30, 2017
DOMTAR CORPORATION
By: /s/ Noel S. Cohen (with consent)
Noel S. Cohen
Attorneys for Defendant
17
18
19
20
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
Dated: October 31, 2017
23
___________________________________________
Hon. Edward J. Davila
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
1
Deadlines with respect to dispositive motions to be filed by Polsinelli PC were previously extended
to allow time for the parties to negotiate settlement. (ECF Nos. 60 and 70.) As a result of the
negotations, Polsinelli PC did not file a dispositive motion and has been dismissed with prejudice.
-3STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
DECLARATION OF DEREK J. MEYER
I, Derek J. Meyer, declare and state as follows:
1.
California, including the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I am one
of the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
28
Plaintiff has been diligent in preparing its opposition to the Motion but requires
additional time for various reason, including but not limited to:
a. Plaintiff and former Defendant Polsinelli PC have been engaged in settlement negotiations
that successfully resulted in the execution of a settlement agreement and the filing on
October 27, 2017, of a stipulation dismissing all claims against Polsinelli PC with prejudice,
which was entered by this Court on October 30, 2017 (ECF No. 74);
b. I am lead trial counsel for the plaintiff in a matter styled Gregory Ingalls et al v. Spotify
USA Inc., 3:16-cv-03533-WHA, pending before the Honorable William Alsup in the San
Francisco Division of this Court. On October 27, 2017, the parties were required to serve
their pre-trial disclosures in this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(C).
c. Also in the Ingalls matter, the parties are required to file a joint proposed final pretrial order
and other pretrial materials on October 31, 2017, in advance of the pretrial conference set
26
27
Plaintiff has requested that Defendant agree to extend Plaintiff’s deadline for filing the
opposition to the Motion by one (1) day to November 1, 2017;
23
25
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion is due on October
31, 2017;
22
24
On October 17, 2017, Defendant filed its Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary
Judgment and or Adjudication (“Motion”, ECF No. 63);
19
21
I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I
could and would testify competently as to those facts.
18
20
I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts in the State of
for November 8, 2017.
7.
Defendant has agreed to grant Plaintiff one (1) additional day to file her opposition to
-4STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
the Motion on November 1, 2017;
8.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(c), provided this stipulation is granted, Defendant’s reply in
support of the Motion would be due on November 8, 2017;
9.
Plaintiff has agreed to provide Defendant with one (1) additional day to file its reply in
support of the Motion on November 9, 2017;
10.
The dispositive motion deadlines in this case have not been extended with respect to
the Domtar Motion;
8
11.
There is good cause for extending the deadlines as set forth herein;
9
12.
Extending this deadline would not prejudice any party;
10
13.
Extending the deadlines as set forth herein would not affect any other dates in the
11
12
13
14
Amended Pretrial Order in the event the Court accepts the proposed new deadlines set forth herein.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on October 30, 2017 at Los Angeles, California.
15
/s/ Derek J. Meyer
16
Derek J. Meyer
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES
Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD
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?