Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. et al, No. 3:2016cv01421 - Document 52 (N.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER granting 51 STIPULATION TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE, HEARING DATE, AND CMC. Deadlines reset as to 50 MOTION to Dismiss: Response due by 12/9/2016; Reply due by 1/9/2017; Motion Hearing continued to 2/8/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Case Management Conference continued to 2/28/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco (Case Management Statement due by 2/21/2017). Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/6/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2016)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ROSE LAW GROUP KATHRYN HONECKER (admitted pro hac vice) AUDRA PETROLLE (admitted pro hac vice) 7144 E Stetson Drive, Suite 300 Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 Telephone: 480.505.3936 Email: khonecker@roselawgroup.com apetrolle@roselawgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class [Additional Counsel on Signature Page] SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP P. CRAIG CARDON, Cal. Bar No. 168646 BENJAMIN O. AIGBOBOH, Cal. Bar No. 268531 ERIC J. DIIULIO, Cal. Bar No. 301439 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4109 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com ediiulio@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Defendants 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 16 17 WILLIAM RUSHING, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a Delaware corporation, also d/b/a Williams-Sonoma, and Williams-Sonoma Home, Pottery Barn, PB Teen, and PB Dorm, Pottery Barn Kids, Pottery Barn Baby, and West Elm; WILLIAMS-SONOMA DTC, INC., a California corporation; WILLIAMSSONOMA ADVERTISING, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO Assigned to the Hon. William H. Orrick CLASS ACTION STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE, HEARING DATE, AND CMC AND ORDER Complaint Filed: Action Removed: 5th Am. Complaint Filed: Trial Date: January 29, 2016 March 23, 2016 October 24, 2016 None Set Defendants. 27 28 Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and [Proposed] Order 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-1(b) and 6.2, Plaintiff William 3 Rushing (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Williams-Sonoma, Inc., Williams-Sonoma DTC, Inc., and 4 Williams-Sonoma Advertising, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their respective 5 counsel, hereby respectfully stipulate and jointly request that the Court extend the briefing and 6 hearing schedule for Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Strike 7 Portions of, Fifth Amended Complaint (“Motions”) (Doc. No. 50) and continue the Case 8 Management Conference as currently set forth in the Stipulated Request and Order: (1) Extending 9 Deadline to Respond to Fourth Amended Complaint; (2) Setting Deadline to Respond to Proposed 10 Fifth Am. Complaint; (3) Setting Briefing Schedule for Anticipated Motion to Dismiss; and (4) 11 Continuing Nov. 8, 2016 CMC (Doc. No. 48). 12 13 14 RECITALS WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint (Dkt. 43) on September 14, 2016; 15 WHEREAS, Plaintiff intended to and did file his Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint 16 (Dkt. 49) on October 24, 2016, which added additional damages claims under the Consumer Legal 17 Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1782(b). 18 WHEREAS, because the parties’ agreed that Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint would 19 render moot any response to the Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Defendants, the 20 parties stipulated and requested that the Court extend Defendants’ deadline to respond to the 21 Fourth Amended Complaint until after Plaintiff’s anticipated filing of his Fifth Amended 22 Complaint; 23 WHEREAS, in the parties’ stipulation and request to the Court, they also stipulated to a 24 briefing schedule (set forth below) for Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss and to continue 25 the Case Management Conference; 26 27 28 Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and Order -1- 1 WHEREAS, on October 5, 2016, the Court scheduled the hearing on Defendants’ motion 2 to dismiss for January 11, 2017 at 2 p.m. and the initial Case Management Conference in this 3 matter for February 7, 2017 (Doc. 48). 4 5 WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an extension of three additional days to file Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ Motions. 6 WHEREAS, at the time Plaintiff agreed to the prior schedule, he was aware that 7 Defendants would be filing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), but was unaware the 8 they would also be filing a motion to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). In light of the holiday 9 season and work devoted to a motion for class certification Plaintiffs’ counsel filed on November 10 28, 2016, in an unrelated action, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks a modest extension of time to thoroughly 11 address each of the issues raised in Defendants’ Motions. 12 WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants have met and conferred and agree that Plaintiff’s 13 deadline to respond to Defendants’ Motions should be extended three days to Friday, December 9, 14 2016, and that Defendants’ deadline to file a reply in support of their Motions should be extended 15 to January 9, 2017. These extensions will not have a significant effect on the overall schedule for 16 this case and would be in the parties’ best interests and in the interest of judicial economy because 17 they will allow the parties to adequately address each of the issues raised in Defendants’ Motions. 18 19 20 WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a)(2), all previous time modifications in the case are as follows: on March 29, 2016, the parties stipulated to extend Defendants’ time to respond to 21 the First Amended Complaint from March 30, 2016 to April 20, 2016 (Doc. No. 22 16); 23 24 25 26 on May 5, 2016, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the June 21, 2016 Case Management Conference to September 6, 2016 (Doc. No. 20); on June 23, 2016, the parties stipulated to extend Defendants’ time to respond to the Third Amended Complaint from June 23, 2016 to June 27, 2016 (Doc. No. 25); 27 28 Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO -2Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and Order 1 on August 4, 2016, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the 2 September 6, 2016 Case Management Conference to September 13, 2016 to 3 accommodate a scheduling conflict by lead counsel for Defendant (Doc. No. 35); 4 on August 23, 2016, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court continued the 5 September 13, 2016 Case Management Conference, and on September 26, 2016 the 6 Court scheduled the Case Management Conference for November 8, 2016; and 7 on October 5, 2016, pursuant to stipulation of the parties and for reasons explained 8 above, the Court extended Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Fourth Amended 9 Complaint, if necessary, to November 14, 2016, and continued the November 8, 10 11 12 13 14 2016 Case Management Conference to February 7, 2017 (Doc. No. 48). WHEREAS, the instant stipulation and request for an extension will be the first extension of a filing deadline requested by Plaintiff. WHEREAS, Kathryn Honecker attests that Eric DiIulio concurs in filing this Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and Case Management Conference. 15 STIPULATION 16 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE and respectfully request 17 that the current briefing and hearing schedule related to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the 18 Alternative, Motion to Strike Portions of, Fifth Amended Complaint (“Motions”) currently set 19 forth in the Stipulated Request and Order: (1) Extending Deadline to Respond to Fourth Amended 20 Complaint; (2) Setting Deadline to Respond to Proposed Fifth Am. Complaint; (3) Setting 21 Briefing Schedule for Anticipated Motion to Dismiss; and (4) Continuing Nov. 8, 2016 CMC 22 (Doc. No. 48) be amended as follows: 23 Case Event 48) 24 25 26 27 Current Dates (Doc. No. Proposed Dates Plaintiff’s deadline to file opposition to December 6, 2016 December 9, 2016 Defendants’ Motions Defendants’ deadline to file reply in December 20, 2016 January 9, 2017 support of their Motions 28 Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO -3Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and Order 1 Hearing on Defendants’ Motions January 11, 2017 February 8, 2017 or the next available date 2 3 4 Case Management Conference and all February 7, 2017 February 28, 2017 or related deadlines the next available date 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 7 8 Dated: December 5, 2016 9 ROSE LAW GROUP, PC By 10 /s/ Kathryn Honecker Kathryn Honecker (admitted pro hac vice) Audra Petrolle (admitted pro hac vice) 11 -and- 12 George Richard Baker, Cal. Bar No. 224003 BAKER LAW, PC 436 N. Stanley Avenue Los Angeles, California 90036 Telephone: 323.452.9685 Email: richard@bakerlawpc.com 13 14 15 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 17 18 19 Dated: December 5, 2016 SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 20 By 21 22 23 /s/ Eric J. DiIulio P. Craig Cardon Benjamin O. Aigboboh Eric J. DiIulio Attorneys for Defendants 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO -4Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and Order ORDER 1 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, as clarified below: 3 The Court grants the proposed extensions. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss 4 is continued until February 8, 2017 at 2 p.m. and the Case Management Conference is continued 5 until February 28, 2017 at 2 p.m. 6 7 8 9 DATED: December 6, 2016 The Honorable William H. Orrick United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 3:16-cv-01421-WHO -5Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule, Hearing Date, and CMC and Order

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.