Opinion
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4766 DMR
11-28-2011
MATTHEW EDWARDS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, et al. Defendants.
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP Jan N. Little (SBN100029) Paula L. Blizzard (SBN207920) SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP Ross H. Garber ( Pro Hac Vice pending ) Attorneys for Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Elaine T. Byszewski (SBN222304) Attorneys for Plaintiffs [Additional Counsel listed on signature page]
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
Jan N. Little (SBN100029)
Paula L. Blizzard (SBN207920)
SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP
Ross H. Garber (Pro Hac Vice pending)
Attorneys for Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Elaine T. Byszewski (SBN222304)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
[Additional Counsel listed on signature page]
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Whereas, on September 26, 2011, Matthew Edwards filed his Class Action Complaint for Violations of state antitrust statutes and the common law of unjust enrichment against the National Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperative Working Together, the Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Land O' Lakes, Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc.;
Whereas Agri-Mark, Inc. was served with the Class Action Complaint on September 29, 2011;
Whereas the parties have conferred and jointly move the Court for an extension of Defendant Agri-Mark Inc.'s ("AMI") time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' complaints in the following related actions: Edwards, et al. v. National Federation of Milk Producers, et al., Case No 4:10-cv-4766 (DMR) and Robb, et al v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al., Case No 3:11-cv-4791(JCS).
Whereas Counsel for plaintiffs have advised counsel for Defendant AMI that another related action will be filed with this Court within the next two weeks; and the parties accordingly believe that the interests of judicial economy and efficiency will be served if Defendant is permitted to answer or otherwise respond collectively to all of the related complaints filed in this Court.
Whereas the parties believe that meeting and conferring regarding a discovery plan and other case management issues would be more productive after Defendant has responded to the Complaint and/or after any motion practice has been resolved; and the parties accordingly believe the case management conference should be continued to a date on or after March 30, 2012, with the deadline to meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (and ADR process selection) set for 21 days prior to the case management conference, and with the deadline for the parties' Rule 26(f) report, initial disclosures, and joint case management statement set for 10 days prior to the conference.
Defendant and Plaintiffs, through their respective Counsel, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Defendant AMI's deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' complaints in the Edwards, et al. v. National Federation of Milk Producers, et al., Case No 4:10-cv-4766 (DMR) and Robb, et al v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al., Case No 3:11-cv-4791(JCS) and forthcoming related action: 21 days following service of last filed complaint, plus an additional 30 days.
2. Plaintiffs' opposition or response to Defendant AMI's filing: 60 days after Defendants' filing.
3. Defendant AMI's reply to any opposition or response of Plaintiffs: 30 days after Plaintiffs' filing.
4. The initial case management conference: on or after March 30, 2012, with the deadline to meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (and ADR process selection) set for 21 days prior to the case management conference, and that deadline for the parties' Rule 26(f) report, initial disclosures, and joint case management statement set for 10 days prior to the conference.
Respectfully submitted,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Elaine T. Byszewski
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
George W. Sampson (pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
Paula L. Blizzard
Jan N. Little
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
Ross H. Garber (Pro Hac Vice pending)
SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP
Attorney for Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc. I, Paula L. Blizzard, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I, Maria S. Canales, declare as follows:
I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the following service was made. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is Keker & Van Nest LLP, 633 Battery Street, San Francisco, California 94111-1809.
On October 17, 2011, I served the following document(s):
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT
to all named counsel of record as follows:
[√] BY ECF (ELECTRONIC CASE FILING): I e-filed the above-detailed documents utilizing the United States District Court, Northern District of California's mandated ECF (Electronic Case Filing) service on October 17, 2011. Counsel of record are required by the Court to be registered e-filers, and as such are automatically e-served with a copy of the documents upon confirmation of e-filing.
Executed on October 17, 2011, at San Francisco, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
Maria S. Canales