Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 3:05-cv-02743-MHP Case 1:05-cv-00778-JJF

Document 48 22-1 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 1 1 of 3 Filed 07/29/2005 Page of 3

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

Bingham McCutchen LLP DAVID M. BALABANIAN (SBN 37368) CHRISTOPHER B. HOCKETT (SBN 121539) JOY K. FUYUNO (SBN 193890) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MICHAEL BRAUCH, a resident of San Francisco, and ANDREW MEIMES, a resident of New York, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

No. C-05-2743-MHP STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE FILING DATE FOR DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

15 16 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, Plaintiffs Michael Brauch and Andrew Meimes ["Plaintiffs"], and Defendant Intel Corporation hereby stipulate that Intel Corporation's response to Plaintiffs' 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. The parties request

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE
SF/21628730.1

Case 3:05-cv-02743-MHP Case 1:05-cv-00778-JJF

Document 48 22-1 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 2 2 of 3 Filed 07/29/2005 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

this extension of time to answer or otherwise respond because Plaintiffs have filed a petition to coordinate or consolidate pre-trial proceedings per 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, the outcome of which 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: July ___, 2005 Bingham McCutchen LLP

By: JOY K. FUYUNO Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation

DATED: July ___, 2005

The Furth Firm LLP

By: ALEX C. TURAN Attorneys for Plaintiff Benjamin Allanoff

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE
SF/21628730.1

Case 3:05-cv-02743-MHP Case 1:05-cv-00778-JJF

Document 48 22-1 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 3 3 of 3 Filed 07/29/2005 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 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE
SF/21628730.1

[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 (1) the earlier of 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 such time for response that the transferee Court may require for any action made part of the same MDL, or, (2) 45 days after any such motion has been denied. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: __________, 2005 _________________________ Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge