Opinion
Case No. CV-10-2611 RMW
11-29-2011
IRMA CORONA, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Laura J. Maechtlen (SBN 224923) Sarah K. Hamilton (SBN 238819) Eric M. Lloyd (SBN 254390) Attorneys for Defendant TARGET CORPORATION LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE G. BENETATOS George G Benetatos (SBN 54986) Attorneys for Plaintiff IRMA CORONA
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Laura J. Maechtlen (SBN 224923)
Sarah K. Hamilton (SBN 238819)
Eric M. Lloyd (SBN 254390)
Attorneys for Defendant
TARGET CORPORATION
LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE G. BENETATOS
George G Benetatos (SBN 54986)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IRMA CORONA
STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO EXCHANGE INITIAL DISCLOSURES; DECLARATION OF ERIC M. LLOYD; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1 (b), Plaintiff IRMA CORONA ("Plaintiff) and Defendant TARGET CORPORATION ("Defendant") (collectively the "Parties"), by and through their counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara on March 30, 2010;
WHEREAS, Defendant removed this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 14, 2010;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on June 15, 2010;
WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ("Motion to Dismiss") on June 21, 2010;
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2010, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and ordered this matter stayed pending the outcome of Plaintiffs criminal trial;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff was acquitted of all charges on February 10, 2011;
WHEREAS, the Court has yet to lift the stay on this action;
WHEREAS, Defendant has not filed a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint in light of the stay imposed by the Court, and shall not do so while the stay remains in effect, absent an order of the Court;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is premature to hold their Rule 26(f) conference prior to the filing of Defendant's responsive pleading in this action;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is appropriate to exchange their Initial Disclosures after Defendant has filed its responsive pleading in this action;
WHEREAS, the Court granted the Parties' stipulated requests to continue the Case Management Conferences previously scheduled for September 16, 2011 and October 28, 2011 due to Plaintiffs counsel's unavailability and the Parties' desire to explore settlement;
WHEREAS, the Parties' current deadline to serve their Initial Disclosures is November 11,2011;
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree to an extension of the deadline to serve their Initial Disclosures. The Parties agree to serve their Initial Disclosures within thirty (30) calendar days of the filing of Defendant's responsive pleading in this action. The Parties further agree that this extension will not alter the date of any other event or any other deadline already fixed by Court Order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
Respectfully submitted,
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Laura J. Maechtlen
Sarah K. Hamilton
Eric M. Lloyd
Attorneys for Defendant
TARGET CORPORATION
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE G. BENETATOS
George G. Benetatos
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IRMA CORONA
DECLARATION OF ERIC M. LLOYD
I, Eric Lloyd, declare as follows:
1. I am an associate with the law firm of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, counsel for Defendant Target Corporation ("Defendant") in the above-captioned matter. The following is based upon my own personal knowledge and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would competently do so.
2. On August 13, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. The Court further ordered this action stayed pending the outcome of Plaintiff s criminal proceedings in United States v. Corona, CR 08-00083PJH. Plaintiff was acquitted on all charges on February 10, 2011.
3. Defendant has not filed a responsive pleading due to the stay ordered by the Court on August 13,2010.
4. On August 26, 2011, the Court noticed a Case Management Conference for September 16, 2011. Thereafter, on September 6, 2011, the parties requested a continuance of the Case Management Conference and all related deadlines to October 28, 2011 due to Plaintiffs counsel's unavailability and the parties' desire to engage in settlement negotiations. The Court granted the parties' request by Order dated September 14, 2011.
5. On October 19, 2011, the parties requested a continuance of the October 28, 2011 Case Management Conference and all related deadlines to December 2, 2011 due to Plaintiffs counsel's unavailability and the parties' desire to engage in settlement negotiations. The Court granted the parties' request by Order dated October 26, 2011.
6. Given that the stay has yet to be lifted by the Court, and given that Plaintiffs counsel was traveling outside of the country between October 23, 2011 and November 2, 2011, the parties met and conferred regarding an extension of the deadline to serve Initial Disclosures between November 4, 2011 and November 7, 2011. As explained in the stipulation filed concurrently herewith, the parties agreed that it would be appropriate to request an extension of the deadline to serve their Initial Disclosures to a date following the filing of Defendant's responsive pleading in this action. The parties agreed that, subject to Court approval, they would serve their Initial Disclosures within thirty (30) calendar days of Defendant's filing of a responsive pleading in this action.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on November 9, 2011 in San Francisco, California.
Eric Lloyd
[PROPOSED]ORDER
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ORDERED that pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, the deadline to serve Initial Disclosures in this matter is hereby extended from November 11, 2011. The Parties shall serve their Initial Disclosures within thirty (30) calendar days of the filing of Defendant's responsive pleading in this action.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED,
RONALD M. WHYTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE