Luce et al v. Gomez et al
Filing
41
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 10, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
DAVID R. EBERHART (S.B. #195474)
deberhart@omm.com
DAVID J. SEPANIK (S.B. #221527)
dsepanik@omm.com
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile:
(415) 984-8701
6
7
Attorneys for Defendant
Apple Inc.
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
TOM LUCE, BRIAN KROLL, MATT
BLACKETT, LAWRENCE RIGGS,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiffs,
v.
SELENA GOMEZ, SELENA GOMEZ &
THE SCENE, LINDY ROBBINS, TOBY
GAD, HOLLYWOOD RECORDS, INC., a
California Corporation, HEY KIDDO
MUSIC, GAD SONGS, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company, APPLE INC., a
California Corporation, EMI APRIL
MUSIC, INC., a Connecticut Corporation,
and KOBALT MUSIC SERVICES
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation.
Case No. CV12-2063 MMC
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
Original response date: May 29, 2012
Current response date: August 10, 2012
New response date: September 3, 2012
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. CV12-2063 MMC
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT
1
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Tom Luce, Brian Kroll, Matt Blackett, and Lawrence Riggs
2
(Plaintiffs) filed this action against, among others, Defendants Apple Inc., (Apple) and
3
Hollywood Records, Inc. (Hollywood Records), and a response was originally due May 29, 2012;
4
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2012, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, the Plaintiffs and
5
Apple agreed to extend the time within which Apple must answer or otherwise respond to the
6
Complaint until June 28, 2012;
7
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2012, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, the Plaintiffs and
8
Hollywood Records agreed to extend the time within which Hollywood Records must answer or
9
otherwise respond to the Complaint until July 2, 2012;
10
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, the Plaintiffs and
11
Apple, and the Plaintiffs and Hollywood Records, agreed to extend the time within which Apple
12
and Hollywood Records must answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint until July 27, 2012;
13
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2012, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, the Plaintiffs and
14
Apple, and the Plaintiffs and Hollywood Records, agreed to extend the time within which Apple
15
and Hollywood Records must answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint until August 10,
16
2012;
17
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, the Plaintiffs and Apple, and the
18
Plaintiffs and Hollywood Records, have respectively agreed to extend the time within which
19
Apple and Hollywood Records must answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint until
20
September 3, 2012 so that the parties may attempt to complete a resolution of this matter. This
21
extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order;
22
23
NOW, THEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Apple, and Hollywood Records, through their
respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
24
Defendant Apple Inc. and Defendant Hollywood Records, Inc. in the above-
25
entitled matter shall have until September 3, 2012, to answer or otherwise respond to the
26
Complaint.
27
28
-2-
CASE NO. CV12-2063 MMC
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT
1
Dated: August 9, 2012
2
Respectfully submitted,
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
3
4
/s/ David R. Eberhart
David R. Eberhart
Attorneys for Defendant
Apple Inc.
By:
5
6
7
Dated: August 9, 2012
8
Respectfully submitted,
PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE & GIVEN LLP
9
10
/s/ Nicholas A. Carlin
Nicholas A. Carlin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Tom Luce, Brian Kroll, Matt Blackett,
Lawrence Riggs
By:
11
12
13
Dated: August 9, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
14
15
/s/ Karen N. Frederiksen
Karen N. Frederiksen
Attorney for Defendant
Hollywood Records, Inc.
By:
16
17
18
19
ATTESTATION
20
21
22
Pursuant to General Order No. 45X(B), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from each of the above-listed signatories.
23
24
DATED: August 9, 2012
By: /s/ David R. Eberhart
David R. Eberhart
25
26
27
28
-3-
CASE NO. CV12-2063 MMC
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT
1
2
PROPOSED ORDEER
Upon stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4
5
6
DATED: August 10, 2012
, 2012
HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
CASE NO. CV12-2063 MMC
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
