Filed: Apr. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RELATED RULE 12 MOTION HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Charles Baird and Defendants BlackRock, Inc.; BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., The BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee; Jason Herman; The Administrative Committee of the Retirement Committee; and The Investment Committee of the Retirement Committee (collectiv
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RELATED RULE 12 MOTION HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Charles Baird and Defendants BlackRock, Inc.; BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., The BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee; Jason Herman; The Administrative Committee of the Retirement Committee; and The Investment Committee of the Retirement Committee (collective..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RELATED RULE 12 MOTION
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.
Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Charles Baird and Defendants BlackRock, Inc.; BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., The BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee; Jason Herman; The Administrative Committee of the Retirement Committee; and The Investment Committee of the Retirement Committee (collectively, the "Defendants") by and through their respective counsel, stipulate and agree to the following:
1. Plaintiff sent the request for waiver of service of on April 11, 2017. As a result, Defendants' responsive pleading would ordinarily be due 60 days later, on June 12, 2017.
2. The Parties conferred and agreed to a briefing schedule in the event that Defendants file a Rule 12 motion in response to the complaint due to potential scheduling conflicts likely to arise for Plaintiff's Counsel at the time such motion would likely be filed. Yau Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. The Parties have stipulated and agreed to the following schedule:
June 1, 2017 Defendants' responsive pleading due
July 14, 2017 If Defendants file a Rule 12 motion, Plaintiff's
opposition to such motion due
July 28, 2017 Defendants' reply due
3. No previous requests for time modification have been made in this case.
4. A declaration from Michelle Yau, setting forth the reasons for the Parties' request, is attached hereto as Exhibit A .
ATTESTATION
I attest that for all conformed signatures indicated by an "/s/," the signatory has concurred in the filing of this document.
ORDEER
PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
Defendants shall respond to the complaint byy June 1, 2017. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to a Rule 12 motion by July 14, 2017. Defendants shaall file any reply by July 28, 2017.
