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.

Bates v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 22, 2010

ERIC B. BATES, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND AS AN "AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE" UNDER THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. A CORPORATION FORMERLY DOING BUSINESS AS SMITH BARNEY, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS HOLDINGS, INC., A CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE RULE 26 DISCLOSURES, DISCOVERY AND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT Action Filed: August 21, 2009

Plaintiff ERIC B. BATES and Defendants MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. f/k/a SMITH BARNEY, and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS HOLDINGS, INC. (collectively referred to herein as "CGMI"), through their respective counsel of record, enter into the following Stipulation with reference to the following facts:

A. This case has been related to Carl R. Wright v. RBC Capital Markets Corporation, No. CIV S-09-3601 FCD GGH. The Plaintiff in the Wright case is represented by the same counsel as the Plaintiff herein.

B. The Defendant in the Wright case has filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint which is scheduled to be heard by this Court on April 9, 2010.

C. The disposition of certain legal issues raised in the Wright Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint may have significance with respect to the certain of the legal issues raised in the Bates complaint.

D. Because of the overlaps of certain legal issues, the Parties in the present case have agreed to request that the Court enter the following Stipulation in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency.

STIPULATION 1. The parties agree and stipulate that their Rule 26 Initial Disclosure shall not be due until two weeks following the Court's issuance of a written order on the pending Motion to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in the Wright matter.

2. Neither party shall initiate any discovery in this matter until at least two weeks following the Court's issuance of a written order on the pending Motion to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in the Wright matter.

3. Plaintiff shall not be required to file his Motion to Amend his First Amended Complaint until two weeks following the Court's issuance of a written order on the pending Motion to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in the Wright matter. By entering into this Stipulation, CGMI does not consent to the filing of a Second Amended Complaint or waive any rights it has to oppose such Motion to Amend. 4. If the pending Motion to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in the Wright matter is granted, the parties agree that they shall promptly meet and confer to determine whether further modifications of this schedule are necessary in order to promote judicial economy.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the Court enters the above Stipulation as its Order.

20100322

© 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.