Johnston v. Schiff Nutrition International et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03669

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT re {{16}} Proposed Order filed by Jeffrey Johnston. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/3/15.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 Jeffrey L. Fazio (146043) (jlf@fazmiclaw.com) Dina E. Micheletti (184141) (dem@fazmiclaw.com) 2 FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP 2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315 3 San Ramon, CA 94583 T: 925-543-2555 4 F: 925-369-0344 5 Thomas J. Misny, (admitted pro hac vice) (misnynt@netscape.net) THOMAS J. MISNY, M.D., INC. 6 7319 Eagle Mills Road Waite Hill, OH 44094 7 T: 440-256-1950 F: 440-256-1950. 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey Johnson, individually and 9 on behalf of all others similarly situated. 10 Katherine M. Schon (Bar No. 288804) (katherine.schon@lw.com) Latham & Watkins LLP 11 140 Scott Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 12 T: 650-328-4600 F: 650-463-2600 13 Mark S. Mester (application pro hac vice forthcoming) (mark.mester@lw.com) 14 Kathleen Lally (application pro hac vice forthcoming) (kathleen.lally@lw.com) Latham & Watkins LLP 15 330 North Wabash Ave., Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 16 T: 312-876-7700 F: 312.993.9767 17 Attorneys for Defendant Schiff Nutrition International, et al. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 21 JEFFREY JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf Case No. 15-cv-03669-PJH of all others similarly situated, 22 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING 23 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO vs. COMPLAINT 24 SCHIFF NUTRITION INTERNATIONAL, INC., 25 a Delaware corporation, and RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, a Delaware limited liability 26 company, 27 Defendants. 28 1 STIPULATION 2 After being advised of the filing the complaint in the present action, counsel for 3 Defendants Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., and Reckitt Benckiser LLC agreed to accept 4 service on behalf of their clients in exchange for Plaintiff Jeffrey Johnston's agreement to 5 provide Defendants with 45 days from the date of service within which to answer or otherwise 6 respond to the complaint. Having considered various factors, including the effect the additional 7 time requested by Defendants would have on Plaintiff's counsels' schedules in the event 8 Defendants respond to the complaint by way of a motion rather than an answer, as well as 9 Defendants' counsel's schedule in the month of November, the parties have agreed to proceed as 10 follows, subject to Court approval: 11 1. Defendants' counsel shall have until October 2, 2015, to answer or otherwise 12 respond to the complaint; 13 2. In the event Defendants' counsel respond to the complaint with a motion or 14 motions, Plaintiff's counsel shall have until November 2, 2015, to respond and 15 Defendants' counsel will have until November 13, 2015 to reply; 16 3. The hearing of any motion shall be set for a date that is mutually agreeable to the 17 parties and the Court. 18 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 19 DATED: September 2, 2015 FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP 20 by /s/ Dina E. Micheletti 21 Dina E. Micheletti 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey Johnston, on behalf of himself 23 and all others similarly situated 24 25 Pursuant to L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the above signatory attests that concurrence in the filing of this 26 document has been obtained from the signatory below: 27 28 -1- STIPULATION & PROPOSED ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 15-CV-03669-PJH 1 DATED: September 2, 2015 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 2 by /s/ Katherine M. Schon Katherine M. Schon 3 Attorneys for Defendants 4 Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., and Reckitt Benckiser LLC 5 6 [PROPOSED] ORDER 7 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 3 September ____, 2015. TE S DISTRICT C TA 10 O S U ED RT ____________________________________ ERED UNIT O ORD IT IS S 11 Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton R NIA Hamilton United States Judge P District Judge hyllis J. NO FO 12 RT LI ER H A N C F D IS T IC T O 13 R 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- STIPULATION & PROPOSED ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT CASE NO. 15-CV-03669-PJH