United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Steve W. Berman, (pro hac vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Seattle, WA, Jeff D. Friedman (CSB No. 173886), Shana E. Scarlett (CSB No. 217895), HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Berkeley, CA, Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
Adam J. Levitt (pro hac vice), GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A., Chicago, IL, Roland Tellis (186269), Mark Pifko (228412), BARON & BUDD, P.C., Encino, CA, Joseph G. Sauder (pro hac vice), Matthew D. Schelkopf (pro hac vice), CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP, Haverford, PA, Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
RANDALL W. EDWARDS (S.B. #179053), KEVIN R. RUBINO (S.B. #255677) O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, San Francisco, CA, BRIAN C. ANDERSON (S.B. # 126539), O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Defendant Ford Motor Company.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
STIPULATION EXTENDING PAGE LIMIT FOR RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") in the above-titled action in this Court and served it on Defendant Ford Motor Company on November 12, 2013;
WHEREAS, the Complaint includes 24 plaintiffs from 15 states collectively stating over 80 causes of action;
WHEREAS, Ford filed its motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) on January 13, 2014;
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2014, the parties stipulated to an extension of 50 pages for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss;
WHEREAS, Local Rule 7-3(a) provides that any opposition brief or memorandum may not exceed 25 pages of text;
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2014, this Court granted the stipulation to an extension of 50 pages for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss;
WHEREAS, Local Rule 7-11 permits a party to seek miscellaneous administrative relief, including permission "to exceed otherwise applicable page limitations, " pursuant to a stipulation by the parties;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs anticipate they will need 50 pages to adequately present their response in opposition to Ford's Motion to Dismiss in light of the number of pages extended to Defendant;
WHEREAS, Ford has stipulated that it will not oppose a request by Plaintiffs to extend the page limit for the brief in support of their ...