From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wood v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 30, 2011
Case No. CV-11-04409-SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. CV-11-04409-SI

11-30-2011

ELYSE WOOD and JACK HAUGHT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

CLINTON JUDD MCCORD ERIN LEE JEANETTE PFAFF EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc. SEAN P. REIS (184044) E DELSON RAFEY S. BALABANIAN (PHV) CHRISTOPHER L. DORE (PHV) E DELSON Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Classes


CLINTON JUDD MCCORD

ERIN LEE JEANETTE PFAFF

EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

Motorola Mobility, Inc.

SEAN P. REIS (184044)

EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP

RAFEY S. BALABANIAN (PHV)

CHRISTOPHER L. DORE (PHV)

EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative

Classes

JOINT STIPULATION

EXTENDING THE PARTIES'

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiff Elyse Wood and Jack Haught, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as the "Parties"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to modify the Parties' briefing schedule as it pertains to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as follows:

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint against Defendant.

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2011, the Parties' stipulated to extend Defendant's time to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by twenty-one (21) days.

WHEREAS, on November 17, 2011, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' current deadline to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is December 1, 2011.

WHEREAS, in the interests of justice and in an effort to enhance judicial efficiency and preserve resources, the Parties have agreed to extend Plaintiffs' time to oppose Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as well as Defendant's time to reply in support of its motion.

WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs have requested and Defendant has consented to extend Plaintiffs' time to file their opposition to Defendant's motion to December 12, 2011. The Parties have further agreed to extend Defendant's deadline to file any reply brief to December 22, 2011.

WHEREAS, this extension is not sought for any improper purpose.

WHEREAS, the extension of time sought will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court Order, including the hearing date on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE and AGREE, subject to the approval of the Court, that:

1. Plaintiff shall have until December 12, 2011, to file any opposition papers to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss;

2. Defendant shall have until December 22, 2011, to file any reply papers in support of its Motion to Dismiss.

Respectfully submitted,

EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP

By: Clinton J. McCord

Attorneys for Defendant Motorola

Mobility, Inc.

EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC

By: _______________

Rafey S. Balabanian

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Wood v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 30, 2011
Case No. CV-11-04409-SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)
Case details for

Wood v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ELYSE WOOD and JACK HAUGHT, individually, and on behalf of all others…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 30, 2011

Citations

Case No. CV-11-04409-SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)