From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Odrick v. Unionbancal Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Oct 12, 2011
Case No. 10-CV-5565-SBA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 10-CV-5565-SBA

10-12-2011

LYNN ODRICK, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, v. UNIONBANCAL CORPORATION, a Corporation, UNION BANK, N.A., a corporation, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Eric M. Steinert Justin T. Curley Attorneys for Defendants UNIONBANCAL CORPORATION and UNION BANK, N.A. ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP Marvin E. Krakow Michael S. Morrison HURWITZ, ORIHUELA & HAYES LLP Cory H. Hurwitz Douglas B. Hayes Attorneys for Plaintiff LYNN ODRICK


SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

Eric M. Steinert, State Bar No. 168384

Justin T. Curley, State Bar No. 233287

560 Mission Street, Suite 3100

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 397-2823; Facsimile: (415) 397-8549

E-mail: esteinert@seyfarth.com; jcurley@seyfarth.com

Attorneys for Defendants

UNIONBANCAL CORPORATION

and UNION BANK, N.A.

ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP

Marvin E. Krakow, State Bar No. 81228

Michael S. Morrison, State Bar No. 205320

401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000

Santa Monica, California 90401

Telephone: (310) 394-0888; Facsimile: (310) 394-0811

E-mail: mkrakow@akgllp.com; mmorrison@akgllp.com

HURWITZ, ORIHUELA & HAYES LLP

Cory H. Hurwitz, State Bar No. 222026

Douglas B. Hayes, State Bar No. 232709

10 Universal City Plaza, 20th Floor

Universal City, California 91608

Telephone: (818) 753-2381; Facsimile: (818) 753-2382

E-mail: chh@hohlawyers.com; dbh@hohlawyers.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LYNN ODRICK

STIPULATION TO AMEND BRIEFING

AND HEARING DATES FOR

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS

CERTIFICATION AND ORDER

Plaintiff LYNN ODRICK ("Plaintiff") and Defendants UNION BANK, N.A. and UNIONBANCAL CORPORATION ("Defendants") (collectively, "the Parties"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows respecting an amended briefing schedule and hearing date for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) ("Motion"):

WHEREAS, the Parties participated in a private mediation on September 26, 2011, and, the Parties are currently considering a mediator's proposal;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff now seeks to amend her complaint to add new named plaintiffs;

WHEREAS, Defendants will need to conduct individual discovery on the new plaintiffs before filing their opposition to Plaintiff's Motion;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff also needs to conduct several Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in advance of filing her Motion;

WHEREAS, defense counsel had an arbitration scheduled this month that hindered scheduling Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in October;

WHEREAS, due to complexity of the issues in this hybrid Rule 23/§ 216(b) action, Defendants require more time than the two-week turnaround currently provided to prepare an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's Motion is currently due November 1, 2011, Dkt. No. 22;

WHEREAS, Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's Motion is currently due November 15, 2011;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's reply brief in support of her Motion is currently due November 22, 2011, Dkt. No. 22;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff's Motion is currently set for hearing before this Court on December 13, 2011 at 1:00 p.m., Dkt. No. 22;

WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have planned vacations in December 2011; and

WHEREAS, defense counsel has a two-week trial scheduled in mid-February 2012.

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by the Parties as follows:

1. The Parties shall file a stipulation to amend the complaint to add the new plaintiffs by November 11, 2011;

2. Plaintiff's Motion will be due on March 1, 2012;

3. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's Motion will be due on March 29, 2012;

4. Plaintiff's reply brief in support of her Motion will be due on April 12, 2012; and

5. All other dates in this case shall remain the same.

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties request that the Court reset the December 13, 2011 hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to May 3, 2012 or the first available hearing date thereafter. IT IS SO STIPULATED.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

By Eric M. Steinert

Justin T. Curley

Attorneys for Defendants

UNIONBANCAL CORPORATION

and UNION BANK, N.A.

ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP

By Marvin E. Krakow

Michael S. Morrison

HURWITZ, ORIHUELA & HAYES LLP

By Cory H. Hurwitz

Douglas B. Hayes

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LYNN ODRICK

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:

1. The Parties shall file a stipulation to amend the complaint to add the new plaintiffs by November 11, 2011;

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be due on March 1, 2012;

3. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be due on March 29, 2012;

4. Plaintiff's reply brief in support of her Motion for Class Certification shall be due on April 12, 2012; and

5. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be heard on May 8, 2012 at 1:00 p.m..

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong


Summaries of

Odrick v. Unionbancal Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Oct 12, 2011
Case No. 10-CV-5565-SBA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)
Case details for

Odrick v. Unionbancal Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LYNN ODRICK, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Oct 12, 2011

Citations

Case No. 10-CV-5565-SBA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011)