Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cobalt Partners, LP v. SunEdison, Inc., 3:16-cv-02263-WHA. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160601815 Visitors: 9
Filed: May 31, 2016
Latest Update: May 31, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [ PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER WILLIAM H. ALSUP , District Judge . Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2(a) and 7-12, the parties, by and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, submit the following stipulation and proposed order: WHEREAS, on March 28, 2016, plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County; WHEREAS, on April 26, 2016, defendants removed this action to federal court; WHEREAS, on May 20,
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] SCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2(a) and 7-12, the parties, by and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, submit the following stipulation and proposed order:

WHEREAS, on March 28, 2016, plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County;

WHEREAS, on April 26, 2016, defendants removed this action to federal court;

WHEREAS, on May 20, 2016, defendants filed two motions to dismiss the Complaint on a variety of grounds, see Dkt. Nos. 42-46;

WHEREAS, the motions are scheduled to be heard on August 18, 2016 at 8 a.m.;

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-3, plaintiffs' responses to the motions are due by June 3, 2016, and defendants' replies are due by June 10, 2016;

WHEREAS, due to the number and complexity of the issues raised in defendants' motions, and in light of other anticipated filings in this action as well as the Memorial Day holiday and other commitments, plaintiffs have requested additional time to prepare their responses to defendants' motions;

WHEREAS, due to the number of issues to be considered and the anticipated complexity of plaintiffs' responses to the motions, and in light of the other anticipated filings in this action as well as the July Fourth holiday and other commitments, defendants have requested additional time after receipt of plaintiffs' responses to prepare replies in support of their motions;

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred over the requested extension and negotiated and agreed to the briefing schedule set forth below, which provides plaintiffs to and including July 1, 2016 to file their responses to the motions to dismiss and provides defendants until July 29, 2016 to file their replies in support of their motions;

WHEREAS, the agreed schedule will not delay the scheduled hearing on defendants' motions;

WHEREAS, plaintiffs previously agreed to provide defendants with an extension of time to respond to the Complaint to May 20, 2016;

WHEREAS, no other extensions of time have been granted in this action.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree and stipulate to the following deadlines:

1. Plaintiffs' oppositions to defendants' motions shall be filed on or before July 1, 2016; and

2. Defendants' replies shall be filed on or before July 29, 2016.

I, Dennis J. Herman, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Scheduling Order. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Sara B. Brody, Brett Hammon and Patrick D. Robbins have concurred in this filing.

* * *

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