From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 28, 2011
Case No. 01-cv-2252-CRB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 01-cv-2252-CRB

10-28-2011

BETTY DUKES, PATRICIA SURGESON, EDITH ARANA, DEBORAH GUNTER, and CHRISTINE KWAPNOSKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant.

Brad Seligman (SBN 083838) Jocelyn D. Larkin (SBN 110817) THE IMPACT FUND Joseph M. Sellers Christine E. Webber Jenny R. Yang COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (SBN 132099) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Attorney for Defendant


Brad Seligman (SBN 083838)

Jocelyn D. Larkin (SBN 110817)

THE IMPACT FUND

Joseph M. Sellers

Christine E. Webber

Jenny R. Yang

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL

PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (SBN 132099)

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

Attorney for Defendant

STIPULATION OF CONSENT TO THE FILING OF THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES, INC. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

The undersigned counsel, on behalf of Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Edith Arana, Deborah Gunter, and Christine Kwapnoski ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"), hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs intend to file a Fourth Amended Complaint in the above-captioned case against Defendant Wal-Mart on October 27, 2011 before 11:00 AM PDT;

WHEREAS, Wal-Mart consents to Plaintiffs' filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2);

WHEREAS, Wal-Mart's consent to the filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint shall not be construed as expressing agreement or disagreement with any factual allegation or legal theory set forth therein, such matters to be resolved in the appropriate course following the filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Wal-Mart have reached an agreement, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(a), to extend the time within which Wal-Mart must answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint and that a corresponding amount of additional time should be provided to Plaintiffs to address any motion by Wal-Mart regarding Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Wal-Mart further agree that to avoid potentially redundant motion practice, briefing, or responsive pleadings, any motion challenging the Fourth Amended Complaint should be resolved by the Court prior to the filing of an Answer by Wal-Mart;

WHEREAS, this extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by the Court;

THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Wal-Mart stipulate and agree as follows:

1. Plaintiffs may file the Fourth Amended Complaint on October 27, 2011, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2);

2. The deadline by which Wal-Mart must answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint is extended to January 6, 2012;

3. Should Wal-Mart move against the Fourth Amended Complaint within the time period specified in paragraph 2, an opposition to any such motion shall be filed no later than March 16, 2012, and a reply, if one is to be filed, shall be filed no later than April 13, 2012;

4. Should Wal-Mart move against the Fourth Amended Complaint, any answer to that Fourth Amended Complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days following the entry of an order resolving Wal-Mart's motion. IT IS SO STIPULATED.

By: Brad Seligman (SBN 083838)

Jocelyn D. Larkin (SBN 110817)

THE IMPACT FUND

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (SBN 132099)

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

Attorney for Defendant

I, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer


Summaries of

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 28, 2011
Case No. 01-cv-2252-CRB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2011)
Case details for

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BETTY DUKES, PATRICIA SURGESON, EDITH ARANA, DEBORAH GUNTER, and CHRISTINE…

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

Date published: Oct 28, 2011

Citations

Case No. 01-cv-2252-CRB (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2011)