Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Walter v. Hughes Communications

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 8, 2010

TINA WALTER, CHRISTOPHER BAYLESS, AND ERIC SCHUMACHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Samuel Conti

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2009, Defendants Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems, LLC (collectively, "Hughes" or "Defendants") filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss");

WHEREAS, on January 26, 2010, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss;

WHEREAS, an answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is currently due on February 9, 2010;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs intend to amend their complaint in light of the Court's order, and have 30 days from the date of the order in which to do so;

WHEREAS, in the interests of efficiency and economy, the parties agree that Defendants need not file an answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, in light of Plaintiffs' intention to file an amended complaint (the "New Complaint"), and that Defendants should instead file a response to the New Complaint, once it is filed;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties through their respective counsel, that: 1) Defendants are not required to file an answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint; and 2) Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' New Complaint within 20 days of the date the New Complaint is filed.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: February 5, 2010

PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

THE HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI Judge

I, Robert B. Hawk, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Briefing Schedule for Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Joshua Ezrin concurred in this filing.

20100208

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.