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.

Diana Alexander-Jones, Individually and On Behalf of v. Wal-Mart Stores

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 29, 2010

DIANA ALEXANDER-JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION; THE WAL-MART RETIREMENT PENDING SUPREME COURT RULING PLANS COMMITTEE; AND JOHN/JANE DOES IN RELATED ACTION 1-15, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Vaughn Walker R

Todd M. Schneider (SBN 158253) SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP 180 Montgomery St, Ste 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-421-7100 Fax: 415-421-7105 tschneider@schneiderwallace.com [Additional counsel listed on signature pages] Plaintiff's Counsel Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (SBN 132099) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com [Additional counsel listed on signature pages] Defendants' Counsel

STIPULATION TO SHORTEN TIME AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS-22

STIPULATION TO SHORTEN TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING SU-27

PREME COURT RULING IN RELATED ACTION the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (Doc # 1), which asserts ERISA claims 3 against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Walmart Retirement Plans Committee, and the Committee's members, who are named as John/Jane Does 1-15.

tion is related to the case Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. CV 01-2252 VRW (EMC)

Whereas, on July 8, 2010, Diana Alexander-Jones filed her Complaint for Violations of Whereas, by Order dated July 22, 2010, (Doc #. 7), this Court found that the present ac- (hereafter, "Dukes"), as defined by Civil Local Rule 3-12(a). of certiorari in Dukes;

Whereas, on December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted Walmart's petition for a writ Whereas, by Orders of May 14, 2010, September 17, 2010 and December 23, 2010 (Doc ## 712, 724 and 728 in Dukes), this Court has now stayed all proceedings in Dukes until the ear-12 lier of: the date of the Supreme Court's decision on Walmart's appeal in that case, or August 26, 2011.

this Court has stayed all proceedings in this case until the earlier of 30 days after the Supreme Whereas, by Orders of August 25, 2010 (Doc # 22) and September 23, 2010 (Doc # 34)

Court's ruling on Walmart's petition for a writ of certiorari in Dukes or December 30, 2010; parable stay in this related case as that entered on December 23, 2010 in Dukes; than 35 days after service of the motion; and that Defendants' motion may be briefed on the following timetable; and grant the stay of this action as requested by Defendants, Defendants' date to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint should be set no sooner than sixty (60) days from the date of such a ruling by the Court;

Whereas, Defendants herein have moved for entry of an order that would impose a com-

Whereas, Civil Local Rule 7-2(a) requires that a motion be noticed for a date not less Whereas the Parties herein have agreed to shorten the time for hearing and have agreed Whereas, the Parties herein further agree, that in the event that this Court declines to

So stipulated.

Therefore, Defendants and Plaintiff, through their respective counsel, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' Motion shall be filed on or before January 7, 2011, and Defendants' reply shall be filed on or before January 14, 2011;

2. In the event that Defendants' motion to stay proceedings is denied, Defendants' obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint shall be set to a date no sooner than sixty days after such denial by the Court.

I, Morgan D. Hodgson, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained 11 12 from each of the other signatories.

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES,

1. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' Motion shall be filed on or before January 7,2011 and Defendants' reply shall be filed on or before January 14, 2011;

2. In the event that Defendants' motion to stay proceedings is denied, Defendants' obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint shall be set to a date no sooner than sixty days after such denial by the Court.

ES DIS IT IS SO ORDERED. T TRI

A CT S T C D U O T T E R I N

Dated:

A , 2011 U I CHIEF JUDGE VAUGHN R. WALKER N

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT N R NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA O R

F O I TH L A ER C N F

20101229

© 1992-2011 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.