Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, 2143. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20151103526 Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 02, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . WHEREAS, on July 13, 2015, plaintiff Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee for the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust (the "Trustee") filed the above-captioned action; WHEREAS, on August 5, 2015, the Court approved the Parties' stipulation setting the date for any response to the Complaint as 90 days from the date of service of process (Dkt. No. 10); WHEREAS, Defendants rec
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

WHEREAS, on July 13, 2015, plaintiff Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee for the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust (the "Trustee") filed the above-captioned action;

WHEREAS, on August 5, 2015, the Court approved the Parties' stipulation setting the date for any response to the Complaint as 90 days from the date of service of process (Dkt. No. 10);

WHEREAS, Defendants received service of process on different dates, and therefore Defendants' responses to the Complaint are currently due as early as November 3 and as late as November 24;

WHEREAS, the Trustee and the Defendants have conferred and agree that, for purposes of judicial and party efficiency, it makes sense to coordinate a single date for Defendants' responses to the Complaint.

It is therefore STIPULATED and AGREED, subject to Court approval, that:

1. All Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint on or before November 13, 2015.

2. If any motions to dismiss are filed, Plaintiff's opposition shall be due 60 days after the filing of any said motion to dismiss, and any reply shall be due 30 days after the filing of Plaintiff's opposition.

3. This Stipulation does not constitute a waiver by Defendants of any defense, including but not limited to those defenses provided under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

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