UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 27, 2011
TAMAR DAVIS LARSEN AND KIMBERLY S. SETHAVANISH, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
NONNI'S FOODS LLC AND CHIPITA AMERICA, INC.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States District Court Judge
Robert Boldt (SB# 180136) Email: email@example.com 2 Beth Marie Weinstein (SB# 252334) Email: firstname.lastname@example.org 3 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 S. Hope Street 4 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 5 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 6 Attorneys for Defendant Nonni's Foods LLC and Chipita America, Inc.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT, TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND TO POSTPONE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE L.R. 6-1(a), 7-12 and 16-2(e)
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2011, Plaintiffs Tamar Davis Larsen and Kimberly S. Sethavanish (collectively, "Plaintiffs') filed their "Complaint For Damages, Equitable, Declaratory 22 And Injunctive Relief" in the above-captioned Court, alleging claims against defendants Nonni's 23 Foods LLC and Chipita America, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") for violations of California 24 Business and Professions Code sections 17200 (Unfair Competition Law) and 17500 (False 25 Advertising Law) and California Civil Code section 1750 (Consumer Legal Remedies Act), as well 26 as claims for common law fraud and restitution; and 27
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2011, the parties filed a Second Stipulation to Extend Defendants' Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint, thereby granting Defendants an extension to and including November 30, 2011 to respond to the Complaint; and 2 Defendants' Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint; and 4 5 respond to the Complaint, through and including April 13, 2012; and 6 7 obviate the need for the Court to decide matters relating to Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' 8
WHEREAS, in light of the parties' intent to participate in good faith settlement discussions, 10 the parties agree that the date of this Court's Case Management Conference in this matter, currently 11 set for January 13, 2012, should be postponed to April 20, 2012 (or a date near to April 20, 2012), in 12 order to give the parties time to attempt to resolve the dispute privately and also to avoid wasting the 13
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, good causes exists to grant Defendants additional time 15 to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint and to postpone the Case Management Conference.
respective attorneys of record, that:
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED.
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2011, the parties filed a Third Stipulation to Extend
WHEREAS, the parties now agree to an additional extension of time for Defendants to
WHEREAS, the parties intend to participate in good faith settlement discussions, which may Complaint; and Court's time and resources; and
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their
1. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, Defendants shall have an extension of time, to and including April 13, 2012, to file a response to Plaintiffs' Complaint;
2. Defendants will notice any necessary hearing for its response to Plaintiffs' Complaint no earlier than June 8, 2012; and
3. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, the following briefing schedule shall apply to Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Complaint:
a. Defendants' responsive pleading to be due April 13, 2012
b. Plaintiffs' opposition to be due May 11, 2012
c. Defendants' reply to be due May 25, 2012
FILER'S ATTESTATION: 14
Pursuant to General Order 45, Section X.B regarding signatures, I attest under the penalty of 15 perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.