Peter Schuman et al v. Microchip Technology Incorporated et al, No. 4:2016cv05544 - Document 165 (N.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING (Docket Nos. 164 in 4:16-cv-05544-HSG and 174 in 4:17-cv-01864-HSG) STIPULATION. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 12/17/2021. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2021)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Peter Schuman et al v. Microchip Technology Incorporated et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Doc. 165 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., SBN 00504800 Mark G. Kisicki (CA SBN 150057) mark.kisicki@ogletreedeakins.com Elizabeth M. Soveranez (AZ SBN 024009) admitted pro hac vice elizabeth.soveranez@ogletreedeakins.com 2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: 602.778.3700 Fax: 602.778.3750 Mark Schmidtke (IN SBN 1733-45) admitted pro hac vice mark.schmidtke@ogletreedeakins.com 56 S. Washington Street, Suite 302 Valparaiso, IN 46383 Telephone: 219.242.8668 Fax: 219.242.8669 Erika L. Leonard (GA SBN 565965) admitted pro hac vice erika.leonard@ogletree.com 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1150 Austin, TX 78701 Tel.: 512.344.4700 Fax: 512.344.4701 12 13 14 15 Attorneys for Defendants (Attorneys for Plaintiffs listed on following page) 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 OAKLAND DIVISION 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ROBIN BERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 4:17-CV-01864-HSG Defendants. PETER SCHUMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants. Case No. 4:16-CV-05544-HSG STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND CASE SCHEDULES Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 27 28 Stip. Re: Summ. Judg. Mots. and Case Schedules and Order, Nos. 4:17-cv-1864-HSG, 4:16-cv-5544-HSG Dockets.Justia.com 1 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL: 2 Michael Rubin (SBN 80618) Matthew J. Murray (SBN 271461) ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 Email: mrubin@altber.com mmurray@altber.com 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Cliff Palefsky (SBN 77683) Keith Ehrman (SBN 106985) MCGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY 535 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 421-9292 Facsimile: (415) 403-0202 Email: cp@mhpsf.com keith@mhpsf.com 13 14 15 16 17 William B. Reilly (SBN 177550) LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM REILLY 86 Molino Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 225-6215 Facsimile: (415) 634-2897 Email: bill@williambreilly.com 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Stip. Re: Summ. Judg. Mots. and Case Schedules and Order, Nos. 4:17-cv-1864-HSG, 4:16-cv-5544-HSG 1 WHEREAS, the parties filed a joint status conference statement on April 9, 2021 in these 2 related cases, Berman et al v. Microchip Technology Inc., No. 4:17-cv-01864-HSG (Berman), and 3 Schuman et al v. Microchip Technology, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-05544-HSG (Schuman), which addressed 4 how to move these cases forward efficiently following the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum disposition 5 in Berman (Berman Dkt. 137; Schuman Dkt. 154); WHEREAS, the Court on April 14, 2021 terminated the parties’ then pending cross-motions 6 7 for summary judgment in Schuman (Schuman Dkt. 156), pursuant to agreement of the parties; WHEREAS, the Amended Scheduling Order in Berman and Schuman set a dispositive motion 8 9 hearing deadline of January 13, 2022 (Berman Dkt. 140; Schuman Dkt. 157); 10 WHEREAS, the parties filed and briefed cross-motions for partial summary judgment in 11 Berman in the fall of 2021, which the Court took under submission on October 6, 2021 (Dkts. 145, 12 163, 165, 166, 168); 13 WHEREAS, Defendants contend that they interpreted the Court’s standing order on successive 14 summary judgment motions as applying only to motions addressing the same claim, and that before 15 the Ninth Circuit appeal and remand, Plaintiffs had previously filed, and the Court entertained, two 16 motions for partial summary judgment in Berman addressing different claims.1 Accordingly, on 17 December 9, 2021, 35 days before the dispositive motion hearing deadline per Civil Local Rule 7- 18 2(a), Defendants in Berman filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ First Cause 19 of Action – For Equitable Relief (Dkt. 171), as to which Defendants contend they had not previously 20 moved for summary judgment, and Defendants in Schuman filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 21 (Dkt. 163), noticing both motions for hearing on January 13, 2022; WHEREAS, on December 10, 2021, Plaintiffs in Berman filed an Administrative Motion to 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs continue to maintain that their pre-appeal motions in Berman did not address different claims and were filed with prior notice to the Court. Plaintiffs first moved for partial summary judgment in Berman on both claims for relief, and the Court granted judgment on Plaintiffs’ denial of benefits claim and granted judgment as to liability on their breach of fiduciary duty claim. Then, after Plaintiffs’ counsel discussed with Defendants’ counsel how to resolve the remaining remedy issues and informed the Court of their intention, Plaintiffs filed a subsequent motion for summary judgment seeking interest and surcharge as a remedy for the breach of fiduciary duty claim. 2 Stip. Re: Summ. Judg. Mots. and Case Schedules and Order, Nos. 4:17-cv-1864-HSG, 4:16-cv-5544-HSG 1 Strike Defendants’ Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or in the Alternative to Stay 2 Briefing before Defendants had responded to Plaintiffs’ meet and confer voicemails and email sent 3 earlier that afternoon2 (Dkt. 172); 4 WHEREAS, the parties conferred the following Monday after an exchange of emails over the 5 weekend, and reached an agreement in principle to file a Stipulated Request and Proposed Order 6 regarding Summary Judgment Motions and Case Schedules, under which Plaintiffs would withdraw 7 their “Motion for Administrative Relief” and the parties would request the Court stay further briefing 8 and hearing on Defendants’ December 9, 2021 motions in both cases and would request a modification 9 of the Scheduling Order to vacate the currently pending dates in both cases, and then, after the Court 10 resolved the parties’ submitted cross-motions for partial summary judgment in Berman, the parties 11 would meet and confer to propose a schedule for filing and briefing dispositive motions as to any 12 remaining issues in Berman and Schuman; WHEREAS, on December 13, 2021, while the parties were exchanging drafts of the Stipulated 13 14 Request and Proposed Order regarding Summary Judgment Motions and Case Schedules in both cases, 15 the Court in Berman granted Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion 16 for Partial Summary Judgment or in the Alternative to Stay Briefing (Dkt. 173); WHEREAS, the parties have been in discussions regarding possible mediation, which are still 17 18 ongoing; WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding the pending summary judgment 19 20 motions and case schedules in these two related cases and have agreed that the most efficient way to 21 proceed, subject to the Court’s approval, is: (1) for the Court to vacate the deadlines set forth in the 22 Amended Scheduling Order in these cases (Berman Dkt. 140; Schuman Dkt. 157) and to stay further 23 briefing or proceedings on Defendants’ December 9, 2021 summary judgment motion in Schuman 24 until after it decides the parties’ pending cross-motions for summary judgment in Berman (Dkts. 145, 25 163, 165, 166); and (2) for the parties to meet and confer promptly after the Court rules on the cross- 26 2 27 28 Defendants contend they did not have the opportunity to meet and confer prior to the filing as they were in the process of researching and drafting a written response to the unexpected two voicemails (left 2.5 hours before the filing) and one email (sent 2 hours before the filing), which they still sent shortly after the filing. 3 Stip. Re: Summ. Judg. Mots. and Case Schedules and Order, Nos. 4:17-cv-1864-HSG, 4:16-cv-5544-HSG 1 motions in Berman, and to propose to the Court a new briefing schedule: (a) in Berman, to the extent 2 any issues remain to be decided that can be resolved by further motions for summary judgment, which 3 the parties have agreed not to oppose as improperly successive; and (b) in Schuman, with the parties 4 either filing new cross-motions for summary judgment or, if Defendants choose to stand on their 5 December 9, 2021 motion (Dkt. 163), for the filing of plaintiffs’ opposition and cross-motion and the 6 parties’ subsequent reply and opposition briefs. 7 8 9 THEREFORE, the parties stipulate and request the Court to order as follows, based on the good cause described above: 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in Schuman (Dkt. 163) is taken off 10 calendar. All further summary judgment motions and briefing in Berman and Schuman 11 are stayed until after the Court resolves the cross-motions in Berman that are currently 12 under submission (Dkts. 145, 163, 165, 166); 13 2. 140; Schuman Dkt. 157) are vacated; and 14 15 All deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order in Berman and Schuman (Berman Dkt. 3. Within 14 days after the Court resolves the currently pending cross-motions for 16 summary judgment in Berman, the parties shall meet and confer and propose a case 17 schedule for such further proceedings, including a schedule for briefing dispositive 18 motions in both cases based on any issues that may remain in both cases after the 19 Court’s decision on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment in Berman. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Stip. Re: Summ. Judg. Mots. and Case Schedules and Order, Nos. 4:17-cv-1864-HSG, 4:16-cv-5544-HSG 1 Dated: December 16, 2021 Respectfully submitted, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2 3 By: /s/Mark G. Kisicki Mark G. Kisicki Elizabeth M. Soveranez, admitted pro hac vice 2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 4 5 6 7 Mark Schmidtke, admitted pro hac vice 56 S. Washington Street, Suite 302 Valparaiso, IN 46383 8 9 Erika L. Leonard, admitted pro hac vice 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1150 Austin, TX 78701 10 11 Attorneys for Defendants 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Dated: December 16, 2021 Respectfully submitted, ALTSHULER BERZON LLP By: /s/ Michael Rubin (with permission) Michael Rubin Matthew J. Murray 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 MCGUINN, HILLSMAN & PALEFSKY Cliff Palefsky Keith Ehrman 535 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94133 24 LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM REILLY William B. Reilly 86 Molino Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 25 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 23 26 27 28 5 Stip. Re: Summ. Judg. Mots. and Case Schedules and Order, Nos. 4:17-cv-1864-HSG, 4:16-cv-5544-HSG ORDER 1 2 3 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, it is SO ORDERED. 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in Schuman (Dkt. 163) is taken off 4 calendar. All further summary judgment motions and briefing in Berman and Schuman 5 are stayed until further order of this Court. 6 2. 7 8 All deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order in both Berman and Schuman (Berman Dkt. 140; Schuman Dkt. 157) are vacated. 3. Within 14 days after the Court resolves the currently pending cross-motions for 9 summary judgment in Berman (Dkts. 145, 163, 165, 166), the parties will meet and 10 confer and propose a case schedule for further proceedings in both cases, including 11 dispositive motions on any issues that may remain in both cases. 12 13 14 Dated: 12/17/2021 15 THE HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Court Judge Northern District of California 16 49669266.1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Stip. Re: Summ. Judg. Mots. and Case Schedules and Order, Nos. 4:17-cv-1864-HSG, 4:16-cv-5544-HSG
]]>
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.
