Filed: May 03, 2016
Latest Update: May 03, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . Plaintiffs Catherine Papasan, Nelson Goehle, Andrew Young, Jimmy Byers, and Christopher Johnston (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and defendants Dometic Corporation and Dometic LLC (jointly, "Defendants"), through their respective attorneys of record herein and without waiving any rights, claims, or defenses they have in this action, enter into this stipulation, with re
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . Plaintiffs Catherine Papasan, Nelson Goehle, Andrew Young, Jimmy Byers, and Christopher Johnston (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and defendants Dometic Corporation and Dometic LLC (jointly, "Defendants"), through their respective attorneys of record herein and without waiving any rights, claims, or defenses they have in this action, enter into this stipulation, with ref..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.
Plaintiffs Catherine Papasan, Nelson Goehle, Andrew Young, Jimmy Byers, and Christopher Johnston (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and defendants Dometic Corporation and Dometic LLC (jointly, "Defendants"), through their respective attorneys of record herein and without waiving any rights, claims, or defenses they have in this action, enter into this stipulation, with reference to the following circumstances:
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 21, 2016;
WHEREAS, Defendants were served on April 27, 2016;
WHEREAS, the parties have not previously stipulated to any extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
WHEREAS, Defendants' response to the Complaint is currently due May 18, 2016;
WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have conferred and have agreed to extend the time for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by thirty (30) days;
WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have also conferred and agreed to a briefing schedule assuming Defendants file a motion to dismiss; and
WHEREAS, this thirty (30) day extension to respond to the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the extended motion to dismiss briefing schedule will not affect the Initial Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for July 21, 2016.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties, by and through their counsel of record, as follows:
1. Defendants shall file a response to the Complaint by June 17, 2016.
2. If Defendants' response to the Complaint is a motion to dismiss, and if Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15 in response to such motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the motion to dismiss by July 22, 2016.
3. If Plaintiffs file an opposition to the motion to dismiss and not an amended complaint, Defendants shall file any reply brief by August 12, 2016.
4. This extension does not affect any of the dates scheduled by the Court pursuant to the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order, entered on April 22, 2016.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), counsel for Defendants has obtained the concurrence of Plaintiffs' counsel, Steven W. Berman, in the filing of this stipulation.
PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
