UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
October 21, 2009
GRADY JACKSON AND KELLEY ALEXANDER, IN THEIR REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY PURSUANT TO CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE [ASSIGNED TO THE HON. CLAUDIA WILKEN] &SECT;&SECT;17203, 17535 AND CAL. CODE CIV. PRO.&SECT;&SECT; NIKKI HASKELL'S PLAINTIFFS,
BALANCED HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, NIKKI HASKELL, AN INDIVIDUAL, GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, AND VITAMIN SHOPPE INDUSTRIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE REPLY 382, 1021.5, AND SUBMISSION OF DEFENDANT MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER [LOCAL RULE 6-1(A)]
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, Plaintiffs Grady Jackson and Kelley Alexander and Defendant Nikki Haskell, through their respective counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), with reference to the following facts:
1. By Clerk's Notice dated August 18, 2009, the Clerk gave notice to the parties that, on 26 its own motion, this Court ordered that (a) Defendant Nikki Haskell's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint would be taken under submission on the papers and that the hearing, previously scheduled for September 10, 2009, was vacated, (b) Opposition to the motion would be due August 20, 2009 and (c) any Reply would be due August 27, 2009;
2. By Stipulation and Order, the date for a Reply to Plaint8iffs' Opposition was continued to October 8, 2009;
3. A proposed settlement of the entire case is currently being documented, a process that 5 will likely take a few more weeks to complete;
4. In light of the foregoing, and in the very unlikely event that the matter does not settle,
Plaintiffs and Defendant Haskell wish to continue the date for her Reply and, thus, for this Court to thereafter take under submission Defendant Haskell's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint thereafter, to November 16, 2009.
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED that Defendant Nikki Haskell shall have up to and including November 16, 2009 to file a Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Haskell's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and that the Court will thereafter take the matter under submission on the papers.
ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING
Pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, section 45 X(B), David L. Gernsbacher hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this stipulation and proposed order has been obtained from counsel for the non-filing parties.
PROOF OF SERVICE I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.
On October 15, 2009, I served the document described as STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER through the Notice of Electronic Filing ("ECF") for parties and counsel, all of whom are registered ECF Users:
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.