Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Castillo v. Seagate Technology LLC, 3:16-cv-01958-RS. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20161004b39 Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS' TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs EVERETT CASTILLO, LINDA CASTILLO, NICHOLAS DATTOMA, FREDA LANG, WENDY TRAN, and, STEVEN WILK ("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Defendant Seagate Technology LLC ("Seagate"), through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on June 15, 2016, the Cour
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PLAINTIFFS' TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs EVERETT CASTILLO, LINDA CASTILLO, NICHOLAS DATTOMA, FREDA LANG, WENDY TRAN, and, STEVEN WILK ("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Defendant Seagate Technology LLC ("Seagate"), through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on June 15, 2016, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to consolidate the following two actions: Castillo et al. v. Seagate Technology LLC, No. 3:16-cv-01958-RS (filed on April 14, 2016) and Dattoma v. Seagate Technology LLC, No. C5:16-cv-02136-RS (filed on April 21, 2016) (Dkt. No. 19);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 28, 2016 (Dkt. No. 22);

WHEREAS, Seagate moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on July 28, 2016 (Dkt. No. 29);

WHEREAS, by order entered September 14, 2016 (Dkt. No. 39), the Court granted in part and denied in part Seagate's motion to dismiss, and the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend their complaint within 20 days of the order;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' deadline to amend the complaint is currently October 4, 2016, which is the second day of the Rosh Hashana holiday;

WHEREAS, on September 29, 2016, counsel for the parties discussed issues related to Plaintiffs' anticipated amended complaint and certain information Plaintiff intends to allege that may need to be filed under seal;

WHEREAS, the parties intend to continue their discussions to determine whether information contained in the anticipated amended complaint should be filed under seal;

WHEREAS, the parties have previously requested an order continuing a case management conference, which was granted on July 6, 2016 (Dkt. No. 28), and a fourteen-day extension of time to respond to the Complaint filed on April 14, 2016, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1.

WHEREAS, in light of the intervening holiday and in order to efficiently attempt to resolve any issues concerning confidentiality, plaintiffs have requested, and defendant does not oppose, an extension of plaintiffs' deadline to file their amended complaint by fourteen (14) days, through and including October 18, 2016.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties, through their counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that the October 4, 2016, deadline for plaintiffs' to file their amended complaint is continued through and including October 18, 2016.

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