From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Colucci v. Zoneperfect Nutrition Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 2, 2011
CASE NO. 11-CV-04561 EDL (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 11-CV-04561 EDL

11-02-2011

JAMES COLUCCI and KIMBERLY S. SETHAVANISH, Plaintiffs, v. ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION COMPANY, Defendant.

Respectfully submitted, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Elizabeth L. Deeley Attorneys for Defendant ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION COMPANY LAW OFFICE OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG Janet Lindner Spielberg 1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JAMES COLUCCI and KIMBERLY S. SETHAVANISH


Elizabeth L. Deeley (SBN 230798)

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION COMPANY

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME FOR DEFENDANT

ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION

COMPANY TO ANSWER, MOVE, OR

OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE

COMPLAINT AND FOR AN

EXTENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the above-captioned case on or about September 14, 2011;

WHEREAS, on September 14, 2011, the Court entered an order setting initial case management conference for January 3, 2012;

WHEREAS, Defendant has not answered or responsively pled to the Complaint and, per prior stipulation, the deadline for Defendant to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint is November 14, 2011;

WHEREAS, the parties would like to exchange information and pursue negotiations and believe that adjourning the Defendant's deadline would be most efficient, in light of the present discussions, and would best conserve the resources of both the court and the parties involved.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties through their counsel, that the Defendant shall have until November 30, 2011 (the "Response Date") to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint, provided, however, that in the event that the Defendant should agree or be ordered to answer, move, or otherwise respond to a complaint in any subsequently filed case based on the same allegations as those made by Plaintiffs in the Complaint prior to the Response Date, then the Defendant shall respond to the Complaint on that same, earlier date. It is further stipulated and agreed by the parties that the Plaintiff shall have twenty-eight days to serve and file a response or opposition to any motion filed in response to the complaint; and the Defendant shall have fourteen days to serve and file a reply to any opposition.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

Elizabeth L. Deeley

Attorneys for Defendant

ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION COMPANY

LAW OFFICE OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG

Janet Lindner Spielberg

I, Elizabeth L. Deeley, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this Stipulation for Extension of Time for Defendant ZonePerfect Nutrition Company to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that the following attorneys have concurred in this filing: Janet Lindner Spielberg, counsel for Plaintiffs, James Colucci and Kimberley S. Sethavanish.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JAMES COLUCCI and KIMBERLY S.

SETHAVANISH

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the attached STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION COMPANY TO ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT AND FOR AN EXTENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE via the CM/ECF system on November 1, 2011.

Elizabeth Deeley


Summaries of

Colucci v. Zoneperfect Nutrition Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 2, 2011
CASE NO. 11-CV-04561 EDL (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Colucci v. Zoneperfect Nutrition Co.

Case Details

Full title:JAMES COLUCCI and KIMBERLY S. SETHAVANISH, Plaintiffs, v. ZONEPERFECT…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Nov 2, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 11-CV-04561 EDL (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)