Opperman v. Path, Inc., 13-cv-00453-JST. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160429a70
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE REPLY BRIEF ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . This Court's Order (Dkt. No. 660) codified the parties' stipulation, by which Plaintiffs reserved the opportunity to seek an extension of the default page limit applied to any reply brief set forth in this District's local rules. After due consideration of Defendants Apple's and Path's separate opposition briefs (60 pag
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE REPLY BRIEF ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . This Court's Order (Dkt. No. 660) codified the parties' stipulation, by which Plaintiffs reserved the opportunity to seek an extension of the default page limit applied to any reply brief set forth in this District's local rules. After due consideration of Defendants Apple's and Path's separate opposition briefs (60 page..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE REPLY BRIEF ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
This Court's Order (Dkt. No. 660) codified the parties' stipulation, by which Plaintiffs reserved the opportunity to seek an extension of the default page limit applied to any reply brief set forth in this District's local rules. After due consideration of Defendants Apple's and Path's separate opposition briefs (60 pages total) and related papers, Plaintiffs have reached agreement with Counsel for Apple and Path regarding page limits for their reply brief.
Therefore, the Parties stipulate that Plaintiffs will file a single, consolidated reply brief, not to exceed thirty (30) pages.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
The stipulation between Plaintiffs and Defendants Path, Inc. and Apple, Inc. regarding Plaintiffs' reply is granted. It is hereby ordered:
Plaintiffs shall file a single, consolidated reply brief in further support of their Class Certification Motion re: Path App, not to exceed thirty (30) pages in length.
Source: Leagle
