JOSEPHINE WELLS and CATHERINE RENY, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., LEK INC., and CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Defendants.
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP, Jeffrey R. Williams (Bar No. 84156), Rocky N. Unruh (Bar No. Bar No. 84049), Sarah D. Youngblood (Bar No. 244304), San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC. and CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA.
THE MEHDI FIRM, PC, Azra Z. Mehdi (SBN 220406), San Francisco, CA, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS.
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Local Rules 7-1(5) and 7-12
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(5) and 7-12, plaintiffs Josephine Wells and Catherine Reny ("Plaintiffs") and defendants Unilever United States, Inc. and Conopco, Inc. ("Unilever"), by their respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:
1. Plaintiffs in this case assert a variety of claims relating to a hair care product, the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30 Day Smoothing Kit (the "Product"). Plaintiffs' Complaint (Dkt. # 1) asserts claims for breach of warranty, violation of consumer protection statutes, false advertising, unjust enrichment, strict product liability and negligence/gross negligence on behalf of (a) a putative class consisting of all persons who purchased the Product in any state other than Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada and Wisconsin or, in the alternative, (b) all persons who purchased the Product in the state of California. Plaintiffs' counsel have also filed two other putative class actions alleging virtually identical claims: Reid v. Unilever United States, Inc., N.D.Ill. Case No. 12-cv-6058, alleging claims on behalf of residents of Alabama, Illinois, Nevada and Wisconsin; and Naiser v. Unilever United States, Inc., W.D. Ky. Case No. 13-cv-395, alleging claims on behalf of residents of Kentucky.
2. On November 25, 2013, the Parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order (Dkt. #14) to stay all proceedings in this case until January 14, 2013 while the Parties attempted to resolve all three cases through mediation. On November 26, 2013, this Court entered an Order (Dkt. #15) granting the Parties' Stipulation and staying all proceedings until January 14, 2013.
3. On November 22, 2013, the Parties participated in a mediation that resulted in a signed term sheet regarding the core terms of a settlement.
4. On December 12, 2013, the Parties appeared for a status hearing in the Reid case. Following that hearing, the judge presiding over the Reid case entered an order directing the Parties to submit their joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement to him by January 31, 2014 and extending the previously entered stay of proceedings in that case to February 13, 2014.
5. The Parties have agreed that the statutes of limitations applicable to any claims relating to the Product of any persons who purchased or used the Product in the United States from the date in 2011 that it was first made available to consumers through the present will be tolled during the pendency of the requested stay period.
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED and the Parties respectfully request through this application that the Court enter an order extending the previously entered stay of proceedings in this matter, including all discovery, to February 13, 2014, deferring all deadlines set forth in the Court's October 16, 2013 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt. #4), and vacating the Case Management Conference that is currently scheduled for January 23, 2014 at 2:45 p.m.
I attest and certify that I received permission from plaintiffs' counsel before e-filing this document and will retain proof of this permission.
All proceedings in this matter, including all discovery, are hereby stayed until February 13, 2014, all deadlines set forth in the Court's October 16, 2013 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt. # 4) are hereby deferred, and the Case Management ...