Filed: Aug. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2016
Summary: CLASS ACTION STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and N.D. Cal. Local Rules 6-2, 7-12, and 16-2(e), Plaintiff William Rushing ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Williams-Sonoma, Inc., Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc., Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc., Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., Pottery Barn, Inc., Pottery Barn Kids, Inc., Pottery Barn Teen, Inc., and West Elm, Inc. (co
Summary: CLASS ACTION STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and N.D. Cal. Local Rules 6-2, 7-12, and 16-2(e), Plaintiff William Rushing ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Williams-Sonoma, Inc., Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc., Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc., Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., Pottery Barn, Inc., Pottery Barn Kids, Inc., Pottery Barn Teen, Inc., and West Elm, Inc. (col..
More
CLASS ACTION
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and N.D. Cal. Local Rules 6-2, 7-12, and 16-2(e), Plaintiff William Rushing ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Williams-Sonoma, Inc., Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc., Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc., Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., Pottery Barn, Inc., Pottery Barn Kids, Inc., Pottery Barn Teen, Inc., and West Elm, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows:
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2016, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss ("Order") and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the Order, i.e., by September 14, 2016;
WHEREAS, the Initial Case Management Conference is currently scheduled for September 13, 2016 (Dkt. 35);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants have conferred and agree that continuing the Initial Case Management Conference until after Plaintiff has filed his amended complaint pursuant to the Order and Defendants have responded will not, at this early stage, have a significant effect on the overall schedule for this case, and would be in the parties' best interests and in the interest of judicial economy, as such a continuance would enable both the parties and the Court to focus attention and resources on the issues that will proceed in the litigation.
WHEREAS, all previous time modifications in the case are as follows:
• on March 29, 2016, the parties stipulated to extend Defendants' time to respond to the First Amended Complaint from March 30, 2016 to April 20, 2016;
• on May 5, 2016, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the June 21, 2016 Case Management Conference to September 6, 2016;
• on June 23, 2016, the parties stipulated to extend Defendants' time to respond to the Third Amended Complaint from June 23, 2016 to June 27, 2016; and
• on August 4, 2016, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the September 6, 2016 Case Management Conference to September 13, 2016.
WHEREAS, Eric DiIulio attests that Kathryn Honecker concurs in filing this Stipulated Request For Order Continuing September 13, 2016 Initial Case Management Conference.
THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and request that the Court issue an order as follows:
• Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on September 14, 2016;
• Defendants shall file a response on or before October 3, 2016;
• If Defendants' response is an answer, the Initial Case Management Conference shall be continued to November 1, 2016; and
• If Defendants' response is a motion to dismiss, the Initial Case Management Conference shall be continued to the first available date at least 30 days after the Court issues an order on Defendants' motion.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
