Opinion
Case No.: 11-cv-03058-JCS
10-11-2011
PATRICIA MCNEARY-CALLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and CHASE BANK USA, N.A., Defendants.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Edward W. Ciolko ( pro hac vice Terence S. Ziegler ( pro hac vice Donna Siegel Moffa ( pro hac vice Michelle A. Coccagna ( pro hac vice Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class [ Additional counsel listed on signature page BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP Peter Obstler (SBN 171623) Zachary J. Alinder (SBN 209009) Elizabeth Benson (SBN 268851) Counsel for Defendants
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Edward W. Ciolko (pro hac vice)
Terence S. Ziegler (pro hac vice)
Donna Siegel Moffa (pro hac vice)
Michelle A. Coccagna (pro hac vice)
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
Peter Obstler (SBN 171623)
Zachary J. Alinder (SBN 209009)
Elizabeth Benson (SBN 268851)
Counsel for Defendants
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS
Hearing Date: December 9, 2011
Judge: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
[Filed concurrently with Proposed Order
and Declaration of Edward W. Ciolko]
Plaintiff Patricia McNeary-Calloway ("Plaintiff") and Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A. (collectively, "Defendants") (together, the "Parties") respectfully submit the following Joint Stipulation to Extend the Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") against Defendants on June 20, 2011 (ECF No. 1);
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss") (ECF No. 23);
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court's Order Regarding Joint Stipulation to Extend the Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dated October 3, 2011, Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is due to be filed on or before October 10, 2011 (ECF No. 36);
WHEREAS, Defendants' reply to Plaintiff's response is due to be filed on or before November 2, 2011 (ECF No. 23);
WHEREAS, a hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is currently scheduled for December 9, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom G before the Honorable Joseph C. Spero (ECF No. 34);
WHEREAS, as set forth in the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Extend the Time for Plaintiff to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dated September 28, 2011 (ECF No. 35), Plaintiff is preparing to file an amended complaint in this action to add additional parties and/or additional claims;
Rather than filing a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, the Parties are presently negotiating a stipulation and proposed order that would allow Plaintiff to file the amended complaint without the need for motion practice.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff's counsel contacted counsel for Defendants to discuss the need for additional time to finalize the proposed amended complaint in light of continued discussions with the proposed plaintiff and amongst co-counsel, as well as the upcoming holidays;
WHEREAS, after meeting and conferring, the Parties agreed to an extension of seven (7) days for the filing of Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, to on or before October 17, 2011, to allow Plaintiff additional time to file her amended complaint prior to October 17, 2011;
WHEREAS, after conferring in good faith, the Parties have agreed, subject to court approval, that Plaintiff shall have until October 17, 2011 to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the date by which Defendants are to file a reply to Plaintiff's response shall remain scheduled for November 2, 2011, and the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss shall remain calendared for December 9, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. This stipulation has been reached to provide Plaintiff with additional time needed to finalize the amended complaint, in the interest of avoiding motion practice related to that amendment and to avoid the need for additional filings in the interim which may be affected or mooted by the proposed amendment.
In the event that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss remains on the docket, Plaintiff has agreed not to oppose any request by Defendants for an extension of up to two (2) weeks to file a reply to Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and will join in a stipulation to that effect, even if such an extension would require moving the scheduled hearing.
--------
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:
Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on or before October 17, 2011
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Respectfully submitted,
Edward W. Ciolko (pro hac vice)
Terence S. Ziegler (pro hac vice)
Donna Siegel Moffa (pro hac vice)
Michelle A. Coccagna (pro hac vice)
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
Ramzi Abadou (SBN 222567)
Jeffery J. Angelovich (pro hac vice)
Michael B. Angelovich (pro hac vice)
Brad E. Seidel (pro hac vice)
NIX PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
Peter Obstler (SBN 171623)
Zachary J. Alinder (SBN 209009)
Elizabeth Benson (SBN 268851)
Attorneys for Defendants
Judge Joseph C. Spero
FILER'S ATTESTATION
Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from all of the signatories.
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Edward W. Ciolko
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 7, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses of all counsel of record.
Edward W. Ciolko