Baird v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., 17-cv-1892-HSG. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170612809
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 09, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 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 (collectivel
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 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..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
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. On June 1, 2017, Defendants filed a Request for Judicial Notice in connection with Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint filed on the same day.
2. Because the Request for Judicial Notice relates to the Motion to Dismiss, the Parties have conferred and agreed that it makes sense to align the remaining briefing on the two motions. Yau Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. The Parties have therefore stipulated and agreed to the following briefing schedule for the Request for Judicial Notice, which coincides with the existing briefing schedule for the Motion to Dismiss:
July 14, 2017 Plaintiff's objection to the Request for Judicial Notice due
July 28, 2017 Defendants' reply due
3. The parties have not requested any previous enlargement of time with respect to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice.
4. One previous request for time modification has been made during the pendency of this action, setting the Motion to Dismiss briefing schedule, which was entered by the court on April 27, 2017.
5. A declaration from Michelle C. 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.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
Plaintiff shall file any objection to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice by July 14, 2017. Defendants shall file any reply by July 28, 2017.
Source: Leagle
