Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00904-JJF Document 20-16 Case 3:05-cv-03028-MHP Document 13

Filed 08/19/2005 Page 11 of 3 Filed 01/17/2006 Page of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Bingham McCutchen LLP DAVID M. BALABANIAN (CA 37368) CHRISTOPHER B. HOCKETT (CA 121539) JOY K. FUYUNO (CA 193890) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 Bingham McCutchen LLP RICHARD A. RIPLEY (DC 412959) 1120 20th Street N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-6150 Facsimile: (202) 778-6155 Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROTTER-VOGEL REALTY, INC. dba PRUDENTIAL CALIFORNIA REALTY, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. C-05-3028-MHP STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND FILING DATE FOR DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

IT IS STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL AS FOLLOWS: Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Defendant Intel Corporation and Plaintiff Trotter-Vogel Realty, Inc., dba Prudential California Realty hereby stipulate that Intel Corporation's response to Plaintiff's complaint shall be due either 60 days after transfer of the above captioned case pursuant to any motion to coordinate or consolidate pre-trial proceedings

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE
SF/21631436.1

Case 1:05-cv-00904-JJF Document 20-16 Case 3:05-cv-03028-MHP Document 13

Filed 08/19/2005 Page 22 of 3 Filed 01/17/2006 Page of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

per 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 or, in the alternative, 45 days after any such motion has been denied. The parties request this extension of time to answer or otherwise respond because the plaintiffs in Brauch, et al. v. Intel Corp., No. C 05-2743 (BZ) (N.D. Cal., filed July 5, 2005), a related matter, have filed a petition to coordinate or consolidate pre-trial proceedings per 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, and the above-styled action has been identified as a related action to that petition. As a result the outcome of the pending petition will impact significantly the schedule of this case. This is the first stipulation between the parties. Because this litigation has just begun, granting such a stipulation will not have any negative impact on the schedule of this case. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED. DATED: August 12, 2005 Bingham McCutchen LLP

By:

/s/ Joy K. Fuyuno JOY K. FUYUNO Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation

DATED: August ___, 2005 Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy

By: NANCY L. FINEMAN Attorneys for Plaintiff Trotter-Vogel Realty, dba Prudential California Realty

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE
SF/21631436.1

Case 1:05-cv-00904-JJF Document 20-16 Case 3:05-cv-03028-MHP Document 13

Filed 08/19/2005 Page 33 of 3 Filed 01/17/2006 Page of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE DATE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Intel Corporation's response to Plaintiff's complaint shall be due either 60 days after transfer of the above captioned case pursuant to any motion to coordinate or consolidate pre-trial proceedings per 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, or, in the alternative, 45 days after any such motion has been denied. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 19 Dated: _____________, 2005

UNIT ED

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE
SF/21631436.1

A

C

LI

FO

arily Judge M

n H . Pa

tel

R NIA

OO IT IS S

RDERE

D

_________________________ Honorable Marilyn H. Patel United States District Judge

RT U O

NO

RT

H