Filed: Aug. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' RULE 12 MOTIONS AND ORDER THEREON WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, Defendant Juul Labs, Inc. ("Defendant") filed a 34-page motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 40) and a 24-page motion to strike Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations (Dkt. 41); WHEREAS, on June 22, 2018, the parties had stipulated that the deadline for Defendant to respond to the first amended complaint be extende
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' RULE 12 MOTIONS AND ORDER THEREON WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, Defendant Juul Labs, Inc. ("Defendant") filed a 34-page motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 40) and a 24-page motion to strike Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations (Dkt. 41); WHEREAS, on June 22, 2018, the parties had stipulated that the deadline for Defendant to respond to the first amended complaint be extended..
More
STIPULATION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' RULE 12 MOTIONS AND ORDER THEREON
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, Defendant Juul Labs, Inc. ("Defendant") filed a 34-page motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 40) and a 24-page motion to strike Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations (Dkt. 41);
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2018, the parties had stipulated that the deadline for Defendant to respond to the first amended complaint be extended from July 10, 2018 until July 24, 2018; that Plaintiffs' opposition papers be due on or before August 14, 2018; and that Defendants' reply papers be due on or before August 28, 2018, but did not set any date for hearing the motion (Dkt. 27);
WHEREAS the June 22, 2018 stipulation did not include a proposed order and no order was issued thereon;
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2018, at request of Defendant, the parties stipulated that Defendant be granted leave to exceed the 25-page limit for the prospective motion to dismiss by up to 10 pages, and that Plaintiffs be granted the same number of extra pages for their opposition to said motion, and the court so ordered (Dkt. 39);
WHEREAS, Defendant set the hearing for the motion to dismiss and the motion to strike for September 5, 2018;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs require more time than was anticipated at the time of the June 22 stipulation to respond to the motion to dismiss in light of its length, as well as to respond to the separate motion to strike;
WHEREAS, given the complexity of the briefing and other existing commitments, Defendants also request an additional week (for a total of three weeks) to file their replies;
WHEREAS, no other extensions have been granted, no trial date has been set, and a further extension of the briefing schedule and hearing will not cause prejudice to any party or the Court;
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss and motion to strike (Dkts. 40-41) shall be extended to August 22, 2018;
2. Defendants' deadline to file reply papers in support of said motions shall be extended to September 12, 2018;
3. The hearing on said motions shall be reset for September 26, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., or such other time as the Court is next available.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) Certification
I, Adam Gutride, attest that I have received authority from each other signatory to file this document.
Based on the parties' stipulation, and FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, it is ordered as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss and motion to strike (Dkt. 40-41) shall be extended to August 22, 2018;
2. Defendants' deadline to file reply papers in support of said motions shall be extended to September 12, 2018;
3. The hearing on said motions shall be reset for September 26, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
