Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated et al v. N.R. Hamm Quarry, LLC
Filing
33
ORDER GRANTING 32 STIPULATION RE SCHEDULING AND CONTINUING HEARING DATE. Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White.. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 8/29/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2012)
<![CDATA[
Case3:12-cv-02127-JSW Document32 Filed08/28/12 Page1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Daniel C. Girard (State Bar No.114826 )
dcg@girardgibbs.com
Jonathan K. Levine (State Bar No. 220289)
jkl@girardgibbs.com
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
Attorneys for Defendant
[Additional counsel appear on signature page]
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
15
16
17
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, as successor by merger to Banc of
America Securities LLC, Jason David Glidden,
and Verlin Olen Dobkins,
18
19
20
Plaintiffs,
No. 3:12-cv-02127-JSW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
SCHEDULING ORDER
AND CONTINUING HEARING DATE
v.
N.R. Hamm Quarry, LLC,
21
22
Defendant.
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:12-CV-02127-JSW
Case3:12-cv-02127-JSW Document32 Filed08/28/12 Page2 of 4
1
STIPULATION
2
Plaintiffs Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, as successor by merger to
3
Banc of America Securities LLC (“BAS”), Jason David Glidden, and Verlin Olen Dobkins, and
4
Defendant N.R. Hamm Quarry, LLC, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby
5
stipulate as follows:
6
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2012, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint;
7
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss and
8
9
10
11
12
cross-moved for summary judgment;
WHEREAS, Defendant’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss must be filed by September
14, 2012;
WHEREAS, Defendant has requested certain limited discovery from Plaintiffs in connection
with the cross-motion for summary judgment;
13
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding the discovery requested by
14
Defendant. At this time, the parties have reached an agreement regarding those requests, and agree to
15
continue to discuss any additional discovery requests in an effort to avoid motion practice under Fed. R.
16
Civ. P. 56(d);
17
18
19
20
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed on a briefing schedule regarding Plaintiffs’ cross-motion
for summary judgment; and
WHEREAS, this is the parties’ first request for an extension of time with respect to the crossmotion for summary judgment.
21
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs and
22
Defendant, by and through their representative counsel of record, subject to this Court’s approval, as
23
follows:
24
1.
Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment (or,
25
subject to satisfaction of Defendant’s discovery requests, a Motion pursuant to Fed. R.
26
Civ. P. 56(d)) by September 28, 2012;
27
28
2
Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of the cross-motion for summary judgment by
November 9, 2012; and
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:12-CV-02127-JSW
Case3:12-cv-02127-JSW Document32 Filed08/28/12 Page3 of 4
1
3.
The hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary
2
judgment shall be rescheduled for November 16, 2012 or December 7, 2012 (the first
3
available hearing date following the Thanksgiving holiday), at the Court’s convenience.
4
Dated: August 28, 2012
5
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
6
By: ___/s/ B. Andrew Bednark_________
7
8
9
10
11
Robin M. Wall, rwall@omm.com
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel: (415) 984-8700
Fax: (415) 984-8701
14
Jonathan Rosenberg, jrosenberg@omm.com (pro hac vice)
B. Andrew Bednark, abednark@omm.com (pro hac vice)
7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036
Tel: (212) 326-2000
Fax: (212) 326-2061
15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
12
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By: __/s/ Jonathan K. Levine_______
Daniel C. Girard, DCG@girardgibbs.com
Jonathan K. Levine, JKL@girardgibbs.com
601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
Norman E. Siegel, siegel@stuevesiegel.com (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
Rachel E. Schwartz, schwartz@stuevesiegel.com (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
Matthew L. Dameron, dameron@stuevesiegel.com (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, Missouri 64112
Tel: (816) 714-7100
Fax: (816) 714-7101
Attorneys for Defendant
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:12-CV-02127-JSW
Case3:12-cv-02127-JSW Document32 Filed08/28/12 Page4 of 4
1
Attestation
2
I hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of this Stipulation from all of
3
the parties listed in the signature blocks above.
4
Dated: August 28, 2012
5
By: __/s/ Jonathan K. Levine_______
6
Jonathan K. Levine, Attorney for Defendant
7
[PROPOSED] ORDER
8
9
10
Having reviewed the above stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment (or,
11
subject to satisfaction of Defendant’s discovery requests, a Motion pursuant to Fed. R.
12
Civ. P. 56(d)) by September 28, 2012;
13
2
November 2, 2012; and
14
15
16
Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of the cross-motion for summary judgment by
3.
The hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary
December 7
judgment shall be rescheduled for _______________, 2012.
17
18
19
20
Dated: August 29 2012
__,
__________________________________
The Honorable Jeffrey S. White
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 3:12-CV-02127-JSW
]]>
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?
