From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Madden v. Cowen & Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Feb 18, 2010
Civil C-06-4886 (JSW) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2010)

Opinion

          Tammy Albarrán, SB #215605, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, San Francisco, CA, talbarran@cov.com, Linda C. Goldstein (pro hac vice), Simon G. Brandler, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, New York, NY, lgoldstein@cov.com, Attorneys for Defendants COWEN & COMPANY, SG COWEN SECURITIES CORPORATION and COWEN & COMPANY, LLC.

          BOROWSKY & HAYES LLP, By: Christopher J. Hayes, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

          JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

         WHEREAS, on December 18, 2009, this Court entered an order setting forth the schedule for briefing Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (the "Order"), and provided that should "counsel wish to modify the schedule, they shall submit a stipulation and proposed order setting forth an alternative briefing schedule";

         WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand on January 29, 2010 and Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand on February 12, 2010, in accordance with the Order;

         WHEREAS, the Order further provides that Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief by February 26, 2010, Defendants shall file their reply brief by March 5, 2010, and oral argument shall be held on April 16, 2010;

         WHEREAS, the Order provides Plaintiffs two weeks in which to prepare their reply brief and Defendants only one week in which to prepare their reply brief;

         The parties hereby stipulate as follows:

         The date for filing the reply brief on Defendants' motion to dismiss is adjourned from March 5, 2010 until March 12, 2010. All other dates set forth in the Order shall remain the same.

         Plaintiffs were provided two weeks to file an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss and a reply in support of their motion to remand. Defendants merely need to prepare a reply brief and so PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, the Court DENIES the parties' request. This Order is without prejudice to the parties submitting a revised stipulation to alter the briefing schedule upon a showing of good cause.


Summaries of

Madden v. Cowen & Co.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Feb 18, 2010
Civil C-06-4886 (JSW) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2010)
Case details for

Madden v. Cowen & Co.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES T. MADDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COWEN & COMPANY, a New York…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Feb 18, 2010

Citations

Civil C-06-4886 (JSW) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2010)