STIPULATION AND ORDER TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT OR ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE AND TO ESTABLISH A BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on December 4, 2015, Defendants removed this action (the "Albano Action") (Dkt. No. 6) and two other substantially similar actions: Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System v. Sientra, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-5549-EJD (the "Oklahoma Police Action"), and Kleiman v. Sientra, Inc., No. CIV 536313 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty. Nov. 19, 2015) (the "Kleiman Action") (collectively, the "Related Actions");

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2015, Defendants filed an administrative motion to relate the Albano Action to the Kleiman Action and the Oklahoma Police Action, which motion is unopposed and presently pending before the Honorable Edward J. Davila;

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2015, and December 16, 2015, Plaintiffs in all three actions moved to remand the actions to state court;

WHEREAS, Defendants have requested an extension of time to respond to the remand motions to accommodate counsel's holiday schedules; and

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred and agreed: (a) to provide Defendants additional time to file and serve their responses to the remand motion; and (b) to consent to the determination of the motions to remand without oral argument or, if the Court determines that oral argument would be beneficial, to jointly request that the Court advance the time for the hearing on the motions to remand to the earliest date that is convenient to the Court following the completion of briefing on the motions.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED AND AGREED, SUBJECT TO THE COURT'S APPROVAL, as follows:

1. Defendants shall have until January 19, 2016 to file any briefs in opposition to the motions to remand;

2. Plaintiffs in each of the Related Actions shall have until January 26, 2016 to reply to any briefs filed in opposition to the motions to remand; and

3. The parties jointly consent to determination of the motions to remand based on the papers submitted without oral argument; or

4. In the alternative, should be Court believe that oral argument would be beneficial to resolving the issues raised in the motions, the parties jointly request that the Court advance the hearing to the earliest convenient date for the Court after January 26, 2015.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Certificate Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3)

I, Frank J. Johnson, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Waive Oral Argument and to Establish a Briefing Schedule on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that counsel for defendants, Koji F. Fukumura and Charlene S. Shimada concur in this filing.

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.