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.

In re Intel Laptop Battery Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


September 23, 2010

IN RE INTEL LAPTOP BATTERY LITIGATION

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. James Ware United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ADJUSTING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE

(Ret.), and have for the past several weeks continued to exchange settlement proposals; resolve this case, and wish to devote the next 30 days toward that effort rather than toward briefing of class certification and summary judgment; and and hearing schedule is being presented on the day that Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due to be filed, but only today reached agreement that it would be beneficial to their settlement efforts and preferable to the parties for Plaintiffs to hold off on filing their motion so that the parties can continue their settlement negotiations,

NOW THEREFORE, the parties stipulate that, subject to the Court's approval, that the briefing and hearing schedule set forth in the Court's 9/14/10 stipulated order [Doc. 100] be modified as follows:

for class certification on or before October 22, 2010;

oppositions to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before November 19, 2010;

opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment on or before November 19, 2010;

further support of their motion for class certification on or before December 6, 2010;

further support of Defendants' motion for summary judgment on or before December 6, 2010;

(6) The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Defendants' motion for summary judgment shall take place on December 20, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.

WHEREAS, the parties participated in an August mediation with Judge Ronald M. Sabraw

WHEREAS, the parties are optimistic that they will be able to reach a settlement that would

WHEREAS, the parties recognize that their request for a 30-day extension of the current briefing

(1) Plaintiffs to file (or lodger in accordance with Local Rule 79-5) and serve their motion

(2) Defendants to file (or lodge in accordance with Local Rule 79-5) and serve their

(3) Plaintiffs to file (or lodge in accordance with Local Rule 79-5) and serve their

(4) Plaintiffs to file (or lodge in accordance with Local Rule 79-5) and serve their reply in December 2, 2010;

(5) Defendants to file (or lodge in accordance with Local Rule 79-5) and serve their reply in December 2, 2010;

(7) The parties will promptly advise the Court if they reach agreement on a final settlement on or before October 22, 2010, and in such an event, will request that the Court vacate the above dates and set a date for hearing preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.

IT IS SO STIPULATED

DATED: September 22, 2010 GIRARD GIBBS LLP Interim Class Counsel

DATED: September 22, 2010 Joseph E. Mais PERKINS COIE LLP Attorney for Defendant Intel Corporation

DATED: September 22, 2010 NARANCIC & KATZMAN, PC Attorney for Defendant Business Applications Performance Corporation

ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: AS MODIFIED.

20100923

© 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.