Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BENJAMIN v. B&H EDUCATION, INC., CV 13-04993-VC. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150817555 Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING AND DEADLINES VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . Plaintiffs JACQUELINE BENJAMIN, BRYAN GONZALES, and TAIWO KOYEJO and Defendant B&H EDUCATION, INC., by and through their undersigned counsel in the above-captioned matter, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and have set a briefing schedule pursuant to the Court's Standing Order (Dkt. No. 73), with a hearing d
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING AND DEADLINES

Plaintiffs JACQUELINE BENJAMIN, BRYAN GONZALES, and TAIWO KOYEJO and Defendant B&H EDUCATION, INC., by and through their undersigned counsel in the above-captioned matter, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and have set a briefing schedule pursuant to the Court's Standing Order (Dkt. No. 73), with a hearing date set for September 24, 2015.

WHEREAS, as established by the stipulated schedule, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on June 16, 2015 (Dkt. Nos. 74-77) and Defendant filed its opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment on July 14, 2015 (Dkt. Nos. 78-1-78-18).

WHEREAS, on August 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their opposition and reply memorandum (Dkt. Nos. 79-80).

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' opposition and reply memorandum inadvertently exceeded the 20-page limit set by this Court's Standing Order, due to Plaintiffs' mistaken belief that the standard 25-page limit for opposition memoranda applied. Accordingly, the memorandum Plaintiffs filed on August 11th exceeds the Court's page limit by 5 pages.

WHEREAS, on August 12, 2015, the parties met and conferred regarding this issue.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendant, through their respective counsel of record, that in the interest of fairness, judicial economy, and resolving issues on the merits, Plaintiffs shall file a revised brief conforming to the 20-page requirement within two court days of entry of this order. Within 14 calendar days of Plaintiffs' filing of a revised brief, Defendant shall file its Reply. The order regarding the schedule for filing briefs related to the cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 73) shall be modified to the extent necessary to conform to this schedule. The proposed extension will not affect any other deadline in this case.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court having considered the Stipulation Regarding Summary Judgment Briefing and Deadlines, ORDERS as follows:

Plaintiffs shall file a revised Opposition/Reply memorandum conforming to this Court's Standing Order by August 17, 2015.

Defendant shall file its Reply memorandum by August 31, 2015.

The hearing on the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, set for September 24, 2015, shall remain on calendar.

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