From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Fischer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 12, 2011
Case No. 3:11-cv-02753-JSW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 3:11-cv-02753-JSW

10-12-2011

SUZANNE D. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM FISCHER; JON SABES; STEVEN SABES; DAVID GOLDSTEEN; MARVIN SIEGEL; BRIAN CAMPION; LONNIE BROOKBINDER; CHETAN N ORBIT, LLC ; SPECIGEN, INC. ; PEER DREAMS INC.; NOTEBOOKZ INC.; ILEONARDO.COM INC.; NEW MOON LLC; MONVIA LLC; and SAZANI BEACH HOTEL, Defendants.

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Vernon H. Granneman (SBN 83532) Dianne L. Sweeney (SBN 187198) OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP Bret A. Puls, Esq. ( Pro Hac Vice application to be filed forthwith) Samuel R. Hellfeld (SBN 234421) Attorneys for Defendant DAVID GOLDSTEEN Robert J. Stump Attorney for Plaintiff Suzanne D. Jackson


PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

Vernon H. Granneman (SBN 83532)

Dianne L. Sweeney (SBN 187198)

OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP

Bret A. Puls, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice application to be filed forthwith)

Samuel R. Hellfeld (SBN 234421)

Attorneys for Defendant DAVID GOLDSTEEN

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF SAMUEL R. HELLFELD IN SUPPORT

Plaintiff Suzanne Jackson and Defendant David Goldsteen, by and through their counsel, and subject to the Court's approval, stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff served her complaint on Defendant Goldsteen on August 27, 2011;

WHEREAS, on September 15, 2011, Plaintiff and Defendant Goldsteen filed a Stipulation to extend the time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint to October 11, 2011, which was entered by the Court on September 16, 2011 (Dkt. No. 24).

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant Goldsteen have agreed to a further, one-week extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on October 18, 2011 in order to afford counsel for both parties the opportunity to continue their discussions regarding the complaint and a potential early resolution of this matter.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES that, subject to the Court's approval, Defendant Goldsteen shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before October 18, 2011.

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, L

Robert J. Stump

Attorney for Plaintiff Suzanne D. Jackson

OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY, LLP

Samuel R. Hellfeld

Attorney for Defendant David Goldsteen
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

The Honorable Jeffrey S. White


Summaries of

Jackson v. Fischer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Oct 12, 2011
Case No. 3:11-cv-02753-JSW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)
Case details for

Jackson v. Fischer

Case Details

Full title:SUZANNE D. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM FISCHER; JON SABES; STEVEN…

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

Date published: Oct 12, 2011

Citations

Case No. 3:11-cv-02753-JSW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)