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.

In re Clorox Consumer Litigation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

June 7, 2013

In re CLOROX CONSUMER LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS.

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN, & DOWD LLP, SHAWN A. WILLIAMS, (213113), San Francisco, CA. STUART A. DAVIDSON, MARK DEARMAN, KATHLEEN L. BARBER, BAILIE L. HEIKKINEN, CHRISTOPHER C. MARTINS Boca Raton, FL. ROBERT M. ROTHMAN, , Melville, NY.

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, GREGORY S. ASCIOLLA, ROBIN VAN DER MEULEN, New York, NY, Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs.

SHEPHARD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP, JAMES C. SHAH, Media, PA,

HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP, LANCE A. HARKE, SARAH C. ENGEL, HOWARD M. BUSHMAN, Miami, FL.

FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, DAVID E. BOWER, CHRISTOPHER B. HAYES, Los Angeles, CA, Members of Plaintiffs' Executive Committee.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP, KENNETH K. LEE, KELLY M. MORRISON, Los Angeles, CA.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP, DEAN N. PANOS, Chicago, IL. Attorneys for Defendant.

JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULES 6-2 AND 7-12

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Plaintiffs Tina Butler-Furr, Susan Doyle, Lori Kowalewski, Catherine Lenz, Kristin Luszcz, Jose Segarra, and Megan Sterritt ("Plaintiffs") and The Clorox Company ("Defendant") stipulate as follows:

RECITALS

1. Whereas, on April 26, 2013, the Court held a case management conference and entered a minute entry which scheduled a July 26, 2013 hearing on Defendant's yet-to-be-filed motion for judgment on the pleadings and directed the Parties to calculate their filing dates accordingly. [Dkt. No. 70].

2. Whereas, the Parties subsequently agreed to a briefing schedule that allowed Defendant 30 days to file its motion (May 30, 2013) and 30 days for Plaintiffs to respond to the motion (June 27, 2013). The Parties further agreed that the Defendants would have two weeks to file a reply (July 11, 2013).

3. Whereas, on May 30, 2013, per the Parties' agreement, Defendant filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On that same day, the Court generated a briefing schedule which required Responses ...


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.