JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NNA'S RESPONSE THERETO; ORDER; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. STORTZ

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. ("NNA"), Plaintiffs Michelle Falk, Indhu Jayavelu, Patricia L. Cruz, Danielle Trotter, Amanda Macri, and Cynthia Garrison ("Plaintiffs"), and Waldo Leyva ("Leyva"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate to and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, after filing this action on August 22, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on September 27, 2017 (Dkt. No. 19).

WHEREAS, NNA moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' FAC on October 26, 2017 (Dkt. No. 35).

WHEREAS, following hearing on January 11, 2018, the Court took NNA's motion to dismiss under submission (Dkt. No. 55).

WHEREAS, while NNA's motion to dismiss was under submission, the parties filed and the Court granted a stipulation to permit the addition of Leyva to this action, following the Court's ruling on NNA's then pending Motion to Dismiss. See Dkt. No. 61 (Joint Stipulation to Permit Amendment of Complaint to Add Plaintiff, entered April 17, 2018).

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Joint Stipulation to Permit Amendment of Complaint to Add Plaintiff ("Leyva Stipulation"), "Leyva would be permitted to join this action as an additional named Plaintiff via amended complaint after the Court has ruled on [NNA's then] pending motion to dismiss." Id. at 2:6-7. Further, the parties agreed that "[i]f Plaintiffs determine to file an amended Complaint that is limited solely to adding Leyva as an additional named Plaintiff, then Defendant will not oppose such amendment." Id. at 2:7-9. The parties further agreed that "Leyva may not assert any claim for relief or cause of action not asserted by the Plaintiffs in their FAC in this action." Id. at 2:10-11. Finally, the parties agreed that "Leyva shall be bound by this Court's ruling on NNA's [then] pending motion to dismiss in this action and may not assert any claim for relief or cause of action dismissed without leave to amend." Id. at 2:12-14.

WHEREAS, on May 16, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part NNA's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 62) ("Order Re NNA's MTD").

WHEREAS, in the Court's Order Re NNA's MTD, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file any amended complaint by June 6, 2018. See Order Re NNA's MTD at 18.

WHEREAS, the Court further ordered that "[t]he amended complaint may not add new causes of action or plaintiffs, and the scope of leave to amend extends only to the claims identified [as being dismissed with leave to amend]." Id.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have not yet determined whether they will seek to amend their complaint to address the claims dismissed by the Court with leave to amend, but Plaintiffs intend to amend to add Plaintiff Leyva to this action, pursuant to the Joint Stipulation to Permit Amendment of Complaint to Add Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 61).

WHEREAS, such proposed amendment would comply with the restriction of the Leyva Stipulation that Leyva "not assert any claim for relief or cause of action not asserted by the Plaintiffs in their FAC in this action" which would also comply with the Court's Order that the Amended Complaint not add any new causes of action;

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs will be prepared to file their amended complaint by June 6, 2018, the deadline set forth in the Court's Order Re NNA's MTD.

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that judicial economy would not be served by NNA filing an Answer to the FAC prior to the time for Plaintiffs' to file an amended complaint on June 6, 2018, and in order to also allow sufficient time for NNA to prepare its response to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, NNA shall have thirty (30) days to Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

WHEREAS, the schedule set forth herein will not otherwise impact any deadlines already set by the Court.

THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated to and agreed as follows:

1. Plaintiffs' shall file their Second Amended Complaint on or before June 6, 2018;

2. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint may not add new causes of action, but may add Leyva as a Plaintiff in this action;

3. Leyva is bound by the rulings set forth in the Court's Order Re NNA's MTD (Dkt. No. 62);

4. No other parties may be added by way of the Second Amended Complaint;

5. The scope of amendment for Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is otherwise limited to the claims dismissed with leave to amend. Any claim dismissed from the FAC without leave to amend shall not be asserted in the Second Amended Complaint on behalf of any Plaintiff or putative class member; and

6. NNA's deadline to Answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint is July 6, 2018.

Attestation Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), I, Michael J. Stortz, hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from the other signatories to this document.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 30th day of May, 2018 in San Francisco, California.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.