Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

SAGINAW POLICE & FIRE PENSION FUND v. ANDREESSEN, 5:10-CV-4720-EJD. (2011)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20110908b65 Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 08, 2011
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2011
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge. Plaintiff Saginaw Police & Fire Pension Fund ("Saginaw") and Defendants Marc L. Andreessen, Lawrence T. Babbio, Sari M. Baldauf, Rajiv L. Gupta, John H. Hammergren, Joel Z. Hyatt, John R. Joyce, Robert L. Ryan, Lucille S. Salhany and G. Kennedy Thompson (the "Director Defendants"), Mark V. Hurd ("Hurd") and Nominal Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") stipu
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS

EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.

Plaintiff Saginaw Police & Fire Pension Fund ("Saginaw") and Defendants Marc L. Andreessen, Lawrence T. Babbio, Sari M. Baldauf, Rajiv L. Gupta, John H. Hammergren, Joel Z. Hyatt, John R. Joyce, Robert L. Ryan, Lucille S. Salhany and G. Kennedy Thompson (the "Director Defendants"), Mark V. Hurd ("Hurd") and Nominal Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Saginaw filed this action captioned Saginaw Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Marc L. Andreessen (Case No. 5:10-CV-4720) in this Court on October 19, 2010;

WHEREAS, HP, the Director Defendants, and Hurd have each filed motions to dismiss;

WHEREAS, under Local Rule 7-3, Saginaw may file a brief not to exceed 25 pages in length in opposition to each motion to dismiss;

WHEREAS, Saginaw contends that many of the issues in the three motions to dismiss are overlapping;

WHEREAS, Saginaw contends that, due to the overlap between the three motions to dismiss, it would be more efficient to file a single, 50-page brief in opposition to all three motions to dismiss rather than three, separate 25-page briefs;

WHEREAS, Defendants do not oppose Saginaw's request.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Plaintiff Saginaw shall file a single brief not to exceed 50 pages in opposition to the motions to dismiss filed by HP, the Director Defendants, and Hurd.

2. This stipulation does not affect the provisions of the Local Rules pertaining to reply briefs.

I, Anne Box, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO ESTABLISH BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that each of the three signatories below has concurred in this filing.

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