Filed: Apr. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 05, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PR OPO SED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNTIL APRIL 18, 2016 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T") and Plaintiffs Marcus A. Roberts, Kenneth A. Chewey, and Ashley M. Chewey hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On February 29, 2016, the Court entered an order compelling arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims and staying the action pending the outcome pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 3. Dkt. No. 50.
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PR OPO SED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNTIL APRIL 18, 2016 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T") and Plaintiffs Marcus A. Roberts, Kenneth A. Chewey, and Ashley M. Chewey hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On February 29, 2016, the Court entered an order compelling arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims and staying the action pending the outcome pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 3. Dkt. No. 50. ..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNTIL APRIL 18, 2016
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T") and Plaintiffs Marcus A. Roberts, Kenneth A. Chewey, and Ashley M. Chewey hereby stipulate as follows:
1. On February 29, 2016, the Court entered an order compelling arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims and staying the action pending the outcome pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3. Dkt. No. 50.
2. On March 21, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion for reconsideration of the order compelling arbitration. Dkt. No. 54.
3. On April 4, 2016, the Court entered an order granting leave and directing AT&T to "file a brief in opposition to the motion for reconsideration within one week of the date of this order"—i.e., by April 11, 2016. Dkt. No. 55.
4. The parties stipulate to a one-week extension of AT&T's deadline to file its opposition, through and including April 18, 2016.
5. As explained in the supporting Declaration of Kevin Ranlett, there is good cause for the requested extension. Under the current schedule, AT&T's opposition brief would be due April 11, 2016. But AT&T's outside counsel at Mayer Brown LLP will be traveling from April 6-10, 2016, and the AT&T in-house attorney who is responsible for this litigation is taking a long-planned vacation starting on April 8, 2016. Thus, the requested extension is necessary in order to permit AT&T's outside counsel adequate time to prepare—and AT&T's in-house counsel to review—the opposition brief.
6. The proposed one-week extension would cause no harm or prejudice to any party and would not have any other effect on the schedule for this case. Indeed, the case currently is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. Dkt. No. 50 at 13 ("[T]he Court stays this action pending the resolution of the arbitration.").
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I, Donald M. Falk, attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from all signatories.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
