From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stagner v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 31, 2011
CASE NO. 11-CV-2889 CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 11-CV-2889 CW

10-31-2011

Jessica Stagner, Plaintiff(s), v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., et al. Defendant(s).

Michael Hoffman Attorney for Plaintiff Julie A. Totten Attorney for Defendant


STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5: The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process:

Court Processes:

[] Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4)
[] Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
[] Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)

(Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR, must participate in an ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5)

Private Process:

[] Private ADR (please identify process and provider) ___
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
[] the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered.)
[] other requested deadline ___

Michael Hoffman

Attorney for Plaintiff

Julie A. Totten

Attorney for Defendant

When filing this document in ECF, please be sure to use the appropriate ADR Docket Event, e.g., "Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting Early Neutral Evaluation."

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the captioned matter is hereby referred to:

[] Non-binding Arbitration
[X] Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE)
[] Mediation
[] Private ADR
Deadline for ADR session
[] 90 days from the date of this order.
[] other

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____

UNITED STATES JUDGE

LYNNE C. HERMLE (STATE BAR NO. 99779)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

Menlo Park, California 94025

United States of America

JULIE A. TOTTEN (STATE BAR NO. 166470)

DAVID A. PRAHL (STATE BAR NO. 233583)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC., an

Ohio Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA STAGNER, individually

and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.

LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA INC., an Ohio Corporation;

LENSCRAFTERS, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Defendants.

Case No. CV-11-2889 CW

DECLARATION OF JULIE A. TOTTEN IN SUPPORT OF DECL. OF JULIE A. TOTTEN IN SUPPORT OF

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

I, Julie A. Totten, declare as follows:

1. I am a member of the State Bar of California and a partner with the firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ("Orrick"), attorneys of record for Defendant Luxottica Retail North America Inc. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and could and would testify competently to them under oath if called as a witness.

2. Concurrence in the filing of the Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Selecting ADR Process has been obtained from the other signatories, which shall serve in lieu of their signature(s) on the document.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California, on October 28, 2011.

JULIE A. TOTTEN


Summaries of

Stagner v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 31, 2011
CASE NO. 11-CV-2889 CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2011)
Case details for

Stagner v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Jessica Stagner, Plaintiff(s), v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 31, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 11-CV-2889 CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2011)