Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PIGGLY WIGGLY ALABAMA DISTRIBUTING CO., INC. v. BUMBLE BEE FOODS, LLC, 3:15-cv-03906-VC. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150918d76 Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 16, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT VINCENT CHHABRIA , District Judge . Plaintiff Piggly Wiggly Alabama Distributing Co., Inc. and Defendants Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, King Oscar, Inc., and StarKist Co. ("Defendants"), (collectively the "Parties"), hereby stipulate to an extension of time for Defendants to move to dismiss, answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in the above-capti
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Piggly Wiggly Alabama Distributing Co., Inc. and Defendants Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, King Oscar, Inc., and StarKist Co. ("Defendants"), (collectively the "Parties"), hereby stipulate to an extension of time for Defendants to move to dismiss, answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in the above-captioned action (the "Complaint").

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed its Complaint on August 26, 2015;

WHEREAS Defendants agree to waive service of the Complaint in this action in exchange for an extension of Defendants' time to move to dismiss, answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint;

WHEREAS, to date, 23 civil actions alleging antitrust violations in connection with the sale of packaged seafood products have been filed in federal district courts throughout the United States, including this action (the "Related Actions");

WHEREAS, a motion was filed before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), on August 28, 2015, seeking to transfer and centralize the Related Actions in a single federal district court ("Motion");

WHEREAS, responses to the Motion are due September 21, 2015, and the JPML has not yet set the Motion for hearing;

WHEREAS, to economize both judicial and the Parties' resources pending the JPML's decision on the Motion, the Parties believe and agree that Defendants' time to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint should be extended until after the JPML has ruled on the pending Motion, it has been determined which court will preside over the Related Actions, and any consolidated amended complaint has been filed;

ACCORDINGLY, the undersigned Parties, through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. If the JPML transfers all Related Actions to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the Defendants shall answer, move or otherwise respond to the then-operative complaint no later than 60 days after: (a) service of a consolidated amended complaint, or (b) service of written notice that plaintiffs will not file a consolidated amended complaint.

2. If the JPML does not transfer all Related Actions to a single district, Defendants shall answer, move, or otherwise respond to the then-operative complaint no later than 60 days after service of the JPML ruling.

3. The Parties agree that no defense is prejudiced or waived by submission of this Stipulation.

4. The parties agree that if Defendants answer, move or otherwise respond to a complaint filed in any other action alleging anticompetitive conduct concerning the marketing, sale, or distribution of packaged seafood products within Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants will answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint on the same day.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer