From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Donohue v. Apple Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 3, 2011
Case No. 5:11-cv-05337 RMW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 5:11-cv-05337 RMW

11-03-2011

DANIEL DONOHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant.

PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS STUART C. PLUNKETT SUZANNA P. BRICKMAN MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Penelope A. Preovolos Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. KATHRYN DIEMER DIEMER, WHITMER & CARDOSI LLP KEVIN ENG EDWARD ZUSMAN MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP MARK BULGARELLI(Pro Hac Vice ) ALEX STEPICK (Pro Hac Vice ) PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC Alex Stepick Attorneys for Plaintiff DANIEL DONOHUE


Kathryn S. Diemer, Esq. SBN 133977

DIEMER, WHITMAN & CARDOSI, LLP

Alex Stepick (Pro Hac Vice)

Mark Bulgarelli (Pro Hac Vice)

PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CLASS ACTION


JOINT STIPULATION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED]

ORDER


[N.D. CAL. CIVIL LR 6-2]


Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

Pursuant to Northern District Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2(a), Plaintiff and defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on May 10, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Apple's motion to dismiss, and ordering Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on or before June 11, 2012;

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred, and have agreed to extend Plaintiff's time to file the SAC due to Plaintiff's counsel's previously-scheduled and conflicting work and personal commitments (See Declaration of Ilan Chorowsky ("Chorowsky Decl."), filed concurrently herewith, ¶ 3);

WHEREAS, the parties also conferred and agreed to extend Apple's time to plead or otherwise respond to the SAC (Chorowsky Decl. ¶ 4);

WHEREAS, this is the first stipulation and request to extend time related to the SAC, and will not otherwise effect or alter any deadline set by this Court; (Chorwosky Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6);

NOW THEREFORE, the parties stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiff's time to file the SAC is extended to and including July 11, 2012.
2. Apple's time to plead or otherwise respond to the SAC is extended to and including August 1, 2012.
3. Plaintiff's opposition to any threshold motions responding to the SAC shall be filed on or before August 22, 2012.
4. Apple's reply brief shall be filed on or before September 12, 2012.
5. A hearing on Apple's threshold motions, if any, shall be set for October 5, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.
6. Apple is not obligated to answer the SAC until after the Court rules on any threshold motions.

PENELOPE A. PREOVOLOS

STUART C. PLUNKETT

SUZANNA P. BRICKMAN

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: _____________

Penelope A. Preovolos

Attorneys for Defendant

APPLE INC.

KATHRYN DIEMER

DIEMER, WHITMER & CARDOSI LLP

KEVIN ENG

EDWARD ZUSMAN

MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP

MARK BULGARELLI(Pro Hac Vice)

ALEX STEPICK (Pro Hac Vice)

PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC

By: __________

Alex Stepick

Attorneys for Plaintiff

DANIEL DONOHUE

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________

Honorable Ronald Whyte


Summaries of

Donohue v. Apple Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 3, 2011
Case No. 5:11-cv-05337 RMW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2011)
Case details for

Donohue v. Apple Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL DONOHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly…

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

Date published: Nov 3, 2011

Citations

Case No. 5:11-cv-05337 RMW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2011)