From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holcomb v. Macy's, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 22, 2011
Case No. CV11-05099 PSG (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. CV11-05099 PSG

11-22-2011

MARK HOLCOMB and KAY HOLCOMB, Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S, INC., MACY'S CREDIT AND CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC., DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP LAWRENCE M. CIRELLI, SBN 114710 EMILY M. CHARLEY, SBN 238542 Attorneys for Defendants MACY'S, INC., MACY'S CREDIT AND CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC., and DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL BANK Pierce Gore (SBN 128515) Kyla Holcomb Piramoon (SBN 263401) PRATT & ASSOCIATES The Pruneyard Tower I Attorneys for Plaintiff MARK HOLCOMB and KAY HOLCOMB


HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

LAWRENCE M. CIRELLI, SBN 114710

EMILY M. CHARLEY, SBN 238542

Attorneys for Defendants MACY'S, INC.,

MACY'S CREDIT AND CUSTOMER

SERVICES, INC., and DEPARTMENT

STORES NATIONAL BANK

Pierce Gore (SBN 128515)

Kyla Holcomb Piramoon (SBN 263401)

PRATT & ASSOCIATES

The Pruneyard Tower I

Attorneys for Plaintiff MARK

HOLCOMB and KAY HOLCOMB

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AND SERVE JOINT RULE 26(F) REPORT

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to FRCP 6(b) and Local Rule 6-1, plaintiffs Mark Holcomb and Kay Holcomb (collectively "Plaintiffs") and defendants Macy's Inc., Macy's Credit and Customer Services, Inc., and Department Stores National Bank (collectively "Defendants") through their undersigned attorneys, stipulate and respectfully request that this Court approve a thirty-day extension of time for the parties to file and serve a Joint Rule 26(f) Report, currently set for November 29, 2011. As grounds for this extension of time, the parties hereto state as follows:

1. Counsel for Defendants was only recently been retained and upon retention immediately sought, and was graciously granted, a thirty-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's complaint.

2. In order to properly evaluate the case and develop a thoughtful Discovery Plan, the parties believe a corresponding thirty-day extension to file and serve a Joint Rule 26(f) Report is necessary. Doing so will allow Defendants time to focus on responding to Plaintiff's complaint and evaluating the allegations before turning to the development of a Discovery Plan.

3. There have been no other time modifications in this case.

4. The parties believe this time modification will have very little impact, if any, on the schedule for this case given its early stage. To the contrary, the parties hope this extension of time will allow for a stream-lined and smooth case management moving forward.

NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, stipulate to extend the time to file and serve a Joint Rule 26(f) Report by thirty days, from November 29, 2011 to December 29, 2011.

IT IS SO STIPULATED between the parties.

PRATT & ASSOCIATES

Pierce Gore

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MARK HOLCOMB and KAY

HOLCOMB

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP

Emily M. Charley

Attorneys for Defendants

MACY'S, INC., MACY'S CREDIT

AND CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC.,

DEPARTMENT STORES NATIONAL

and BANK

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Holcomb v. Macy's, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 22, 2011
Case No. CV11-05099 PSG (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2011)
Case details for

Holcomb v. Macy's, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARK HOLCOMB and KAY HOLCOMB, Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S, INC., MACY'S CREDIT…

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

Date published: Nov 22, 2011

Citations

Case No. CV11-05099 PSG (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2011)