Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Martin Murray, et al. v. Sears

June 16, 2011

MARTIN MURRAY, ET AL.
PLAINTIFF(S),
v.
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., ET AL.
DEFENDANTS.



LAW OFFICE OF MARK BOLING Mark Boling, State Bar No. 101589 21986 Cayuga Lane Lake Forest, California 92630 3 Telephone: (949) 588-9222 Facsimile: (949) 588-7078 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 MARTIN MURRAY (additional attorneys listed on signature page) 6 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 7 Mark S. Mester (Pro Hac Vice) Livia M. Kiser (Pro Hac Vice) 8 Kathleen P. Lally (Pro Hac Vice) 9 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5800 Chicago, Illinois 60606 10 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 Facsimile: (312) 993-9767 11 Attorneys for Defendant ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. 12 (additional attorneys listed on signature page) 13 SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY (US) LLP 14 Mark C. Dosker (CA Bar # 114789) Julie E. Schwartz (CA Bar # 260624) 15 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, California 94111 16 Telephone: (415) 954-0200 17 Facsimile: (415) 393-9887 Attorneys for Defendant 18 SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. (additional attorneys listed on signature page) 19 20

Class Action JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HEARING DATE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Civil Local Rule 7-12

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Martin Murray and Defendants Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Electrolux Home Products, Inc. through their respective counsel as 3 follows: 4

RECITALS

1. On January 25, 2011, this Court continued the Case Management Conference to May 3, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2 of the above-entitled Court to allow for further developments 7 regarding the issuance of an injunction against Plaintiff Murray and his attorneys in the case of Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Case No. 06 CV 1999, U.S. District Court, Northern District 9 of Illinois ("Thorogood Case"). The Court also stayed all discovery until further order. 10

extend the May 3, 2011 Case Management Conference to June 21, 2011 [Dkt. 137], which the Court 12 granted on April 15, 2011. [Dkt. 138].

2. On April 14, 2011 the Parties submitted a Joint Stipulation requesting the Court to

3. Pursuant to a briefing schedule entered by the Court in the Thorogood Case, on February 18, 2010 [Thorogood Dkt. 191], Plaintiff Thorogood and Defendant Sears submitted 15 briefing in the Northern District of Illinois regarding the appropriate scope of the injunction ordered 16 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 624 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. Nov. 2, 2010) ("Thorogood III"). [Thorogood Dkt. 192, 196 & 197].

4. On March 2, 2011, Plaintiff Murray, as Co-Petitioner with Steven Thorogood, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Thorogood v. Sears, 20

Roebuck & Co., Supreme Court Case No. 10-1087 ("Petition") challenging the decision and Opinion 21 in Thorogood III. 22

5. On April 4, 2011, Defendant Sears filed its Response to the Petition in the Supreme Court.

6. On April 18, 2011 the Northern District of Illinois entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Sears' permanent injunction [Thorogood Dkt. 199 & 200], which was signed and 26 entered on April 29, 2011. [Thorogood Dkt. 202].

7. On April 28, 2011 Plaintiff Murray and Co-Petitioner Thorogood submitted their Reply in support of their Petition in the Supreme Court. 2

8. On May 17, 2011 Thorogood timely filed his Notice of Appeal in the Northern District of Illinois, [Thorogood Dkt. 203], appealing the Northern District of Illinois' issuance of an 4 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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