ARVILLE WINANS, by and through his guardian ad litem, RENEE MOULTON, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
EMERITUS CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
GUY B. WALLACE MARK T. JOHNSON SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP San Francisco, CA.
KATHRYN A. STEBNER SARAH COLBY GEORGE KAWAMOTO STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES San Francisco, CA.
MICHAEL D. THAMER LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. THAMER Callahan, California ROBERT S. ARNS THE ARNS LAW FIRM San Francisco, CA.
W. TIMOTHY NEEDHAM JANSSEN MALLOY LLP Eureka, CA Attorneys for Plaintiff.
THOMAS J. NOLAN HARRIET S. POSNER JASON D. RUSSELL LISA M. GILFORD SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP. Los Angeles, California Attorneys for Defendant.
STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS; DECLARATION OF GUY B. WALLACE PURSUANT TO L.R. 6-2 (a)
SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2013, Plaintiff Arville Winans commenced an action in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda entitled Arville Winans, by and through his Guardian ad litem, Renee Moulton, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Emeritus Corporation and Does 1 through 100, Case No. RG 13689560 (the "State Court Action"), and served process on Defendant Emeritus Corporation on July 30, 2013;
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2013, Defendant petitioned to remove the State Court Action to this Court;
WHEREAS, on August 30, 2013, the parties agreed that Defendant would be given until September 26, 2013 to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint;
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint;
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2013, the parties agreed to a briefing schedule to allow Plaintiff four weeks to oppose the Motion to Dismiss or, alternatively, to amend his Complaint;
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint;
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as well as a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff is presently due to file his oppositions to Defendant's two pending motions on January 17, 2014, but requires a short one week extension of time to do so for the reasons ...