Filed: Oct. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 26, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER INCREASING THE PAGE LIMIT OF AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BY TWO PAGES JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Plaintiffs Lindsey and Jeff Aberin, Don Awtrey, Charles Burgess, Daniel Criner, Jared Crooks, Mark Gerstle, John Kelly, Yun-Fei Lou, Joy Matza, Jordan Moss, Donald Tran, and Melissa Yeung ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("AHM"), pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Loca
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER INCREASING THE PAGE LIMIT OF AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BY TWO PAGES JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Plaintiffs Lindsey and Jeff Aberin, Don Awtrey, Charles Burgess, Daniel Criner, Jared Crooks, Mark Gerstle, John Kelly, Yun-Fei Lou, Joy Matza, Jordan Moss, Donald Tran, and Melissa Yeung ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("AHM"), pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER INCREASING THE PAGE LIMIT OF AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS BY TWO PAGES
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Lindsey and Jeff Aberin, Don Awtrey, Charles Burgess, Daniel Criner, Jared Crooks, Mark Gerstle, John Kelly, Yun-Fei Lou, Joy Matza, Jordan Moss, Donald Tran, and Melissa Yeung ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("AHM"), pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-12 and subject to approval by the Court, hereby stipulate to increase the page limit of AHM's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss by two pages (from 15 pages to 17 pages), and in support state as follows:
1. On July 7, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC").
2. The SAC includes 12 named Plaintiffs who seek to bring a putative nationwide class action or, alternatively, putative statewide subclasses for 8 different states. The SAC includes causes of action set out in 40 separate counts.
3. On August 21, 2017, AHM filed a Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") certain counts of the SAC.
4. On October 6, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion ("Opposition").
5. AHM's Reply in Support of its Motion ("Reply") is due October 31, 2017. AHM has endeavored to keep its Reply as succinct as possible, but given the number of Plaintiffs, the complexity of the issues—including legal arguments raised by Plaintiffs for the first time in their Opposition which, while proper, AHM has not had a chance to previously address—and desire to avoid the need for future motions to dismiss, AHM respectfully submits that two extra pages are appropriate to allow AHM to fully respond to Plaintiff's Opposition.
6. AHM does not intend to raise any new arguments in its Reply that it has not raised in its Motion or that Plaintiffs did not raise in their Opposition.
WHEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND REQUEST that the Court enter an Order increasing the page limit of AHM's Reply by two pages (from 15 to 17 pages).
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURUSANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
