Opinion
2:23-cv-00294-JLR JLR
06-21-2023
ASHLEY POPA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PSP GROUP, LLC d/b/a PET SUPPLIES PLUS, and MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendants.
Gary F Lynch Jamisen A. Etzel Nicholas Colella LYNCH CARPENTER LLP Kim D Stephens, TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Counsel for Plaintiff Ashley Popa. John S Devlin, III, LANE POWELL PC James L. Rockney Gerard M. Stegmaier REED SMITH Counsel for Defendant PSP Group, LLC. Nicola C. Menaldo, Anna M. Thompson, PERKINS COIE LLP James G. Snell PERKINS COIE LLP Counsel for Defendant Microsoft Corporation.
Gary F Lynch Jamisen A. Etzel Nicholas Colella LYNCH CARPENTER LLP Kim D Stephens, TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Counsel for Plaintiff Ashley Popa.
John S Devlin, III, LANE POWELL PC James L. Rockney Gerard M. Stegmaier REED SMITH Counsel for Defendant PSP Group, LLC.
Nicola C. Menaldo, Anna M. Thompson, PERKINS COIE LLP James G. Snell PERKINS COIE LLP Counsel for Defendant Microsoft Corporation.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING SCHEDULE
HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART, JUDGE.
Plaintiff Ashley Popa, and Defendants PSP Group, LLC and Microsoft Corporation (collectively “the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby move to extend the briefing schedule for Defendants' Motions to Dismiss filed on June 6, 2023 (ECF Nos. 54, 55). Plaintiff's opposition to the motions is currently due on June 26, 2023. By and through their respective counsel, the Parties stipulated to-and now jointly and respectfully request that the Court approve-an extension of the briefing schedule for Plaintiff to file her opposition to the Motions to Dismiss to July 31, 2023 and for Defendants to file any reply to September 8, 2023.
An extension may be justified at the discretion of the Court if the request for an extension is timely, and the request is not made in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Good cause exists to grant the stipulation. The parties agree that this request is supported by good cause. This action involves two defendants, a putative class pursuing claims under Pennsylvania law, and complex and novel questions of statutory interpretation. Thus, Plaintiff and Defendants seek extensions to the response and reply times given the complexity and nature of the responsive and forthcoming oppositions. Extending the foregoing deadline will not impact other deadlines in this case. In view of the number, complexity, and importance of the issues raised by Defendants' two motions to dismiss, the parties agree that Plaintiff's opposition to both motions shall be due on July 31, 2023. The parties further agree that Defendants' replies shall be due on September 8, 2023, with re-noting of the motion for September 8, 2023.
SO ORDERED.