From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robb v. Nat'l Milk Producers Fed'n

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 28, 2011
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4791 JCS (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4791 JCS

11-28-2011

JEFFREY ROBB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, et al. Defendants.

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP By: Elaine T. Byszewski HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice) George W. Sampson (pro hac vice) HAGETNHS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Attorneys for the Plaintiffs KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP By: Paula L. Blizzard Jan N. Little KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP Ross H. Garber (Pro Hac Vice pending) SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP Attorney for Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc.


KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

Jan N. Little (SBN100029)

Paula L. Blizzard (SBN207920)

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 391-5400

jlittle@kvn.com

pblizzard@kvn.com

SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP

Ross H. Garber (Pro Hac Vice pending)

One Constitution Plaza

Hartford, CT 06103

Telephone (860) 251-5901

RGarber@goodwin.com

Attorneys for Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc.

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Elaine T. Byszewski (SBN222304)

700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Telephone (213) 330-7150

Facsimile (213) 330-7152

elaine@hbsslaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

[Additional Counsel listed on signature page]

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Whereas, on September 27, 2011, Jeffrey Robb filed his Class Action Complaint for Violations of state antitrust statutes and the common law of unjust enrichment against the National Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperative Working Together, the Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Land O' Lakes, Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc.;

Whereas Agri-Mark, Inc. was served with the Class Action Complaint on September 29, 2011;

Whereas the parties have conferred and jointly move the Court for an extension of Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc.'s ("AMI") time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' complaints in the following related actions: Edwards, et al. v. National Federation of Milk Producers, et al., Case No 4:10-cv-4766 (DMR) and Robb, et al v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al., Case No 3:11-cv-4791(JCS).

Whereas Counsel for plaintiffs have advised counsel for Defendant AMI that another related action will be filed with this Court within the next two weeks; and the parties accordingly believe that the interests of judicial economy and efficiency will be served if Defendant is permitted to answer or otherwise respond collectively to all of the related complaints filed in this Court.

Whereas the parties believe that meeting and conferring regarding a discovery plan and other case management issues would be more productive after Defendant has responded to the Complaint and/or after any motion practice has been resolved; and the parties accordingly believe the case management conference should be continued to a date on or after March 30, 2012, with the deadline to meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (and ADR process selection) set for 21 days prior to the case management conference, and with the deadline for the parties' Rule 26(f) report, initial disclosures, and joint case management statement set for 10 days prior to the conference.

Defendant and Plaintiffs, through their respective counsel, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Defendant AMI's deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' complaints in the Edwards, et al. v. National Federation of Milk Producers, et al., Case No 4:10-cv-4766 (DMR) and Robb, et al v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al., Case No 3:11-cv-4791(JCS) and forthcoming related action: 21 days following service of last filed complaint, plus an additional 30 days.
2. Plaintiffs' opposition or response to Defendant AMI's filing: 60 days after Defendants' filing.
3. Defendant AMI's reply to any opposition or response of Plaintiffs: 30 days after Plaintiffs' filing.
4. The initial case management conference: on or after March 30, 2012, with the deadline to meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (and ADR process selection) set for 21 days prior to the case management conference, and that deadline for the parties' Rule 26(f) report, initial disclosures, and joint case management statement set for 10 days prior to the conference.

Respectfully submitted,

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

By:Elaine T. Byszewski

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)

George W. Sampson (pro hac vice)

HAGETNHS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

By: Paula L. Blizzard

Jan N. Little

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

Ross H. Garber (Pro Hac Vice pending)

SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP

Attorney for Defendant Agri-Mark, Inc. I, Paula L. Blizzard, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:


Summaries of

Robb v. Nat'l Milk Producers Fed'n

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 28, 2011
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4791 JCS (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)
Case details for

Robb v. Nat'l Milk Producers Fed'n

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY ROBB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 28, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 4:11-CV-4791 JCS (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)