Free Stipulation to EXTEND Time - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

JUL ‘“· ‘“’° éa% °“%‘%% l¢>“ *ib*l§..‘“ m` meow uwmau nmol/gone 0% ééneih. I4! *.54
1 Bingham MeCutchen LLP E '
DAVID M. BALABANIAN (SBN 37368) " .
2 CHRISTOPHER B. HOCKETT (SBN 121539) ·
JOY K. FUYUNO (SBN 193890)
3 Three Embarcadero Center : _
San Francisco. CA 94111-4067 _
4 Telephone: $415) 393-2000 ‘ '
5 Facsimile: ( I5) 393-2286 - ‘ ` I
Attomeye for Defendant
6 Intel Corporntlml ·
. 7 _ U
8 - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i `
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OP CALIFORNIA , . J
10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION _
11 I
12 MARIA I. PROHIAS, individually Bild on behalf No. C-05-2699 .
of all others similarly situated, _ . , ;
13 STIPULATION AND IPROPOSED] ¤
Plaintiff; ORDER TO CO FILING DATE ;
14 v. FOR DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT a
15 INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware _
corporation,
16 e _
Defendant. 3 ,
17 ' ’
18 IT IS STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THROUGIEI 'ITIEIR. · I
19
COUNSEL AS FOLLOWS: .
20
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plainlifl`Maria I. Pruhias and Defendant Intel
21 .
Corporation hereby stipulate that Intel C0rporaxion’e response to Plaintiffs complaint qhall be
22 ?
due either 60 days mer mmfer ofthe above captioned ease pursuant to my motion to 'courdinate · i
23 or consolidate pre-trial proceedings per 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 or, in the alternative, 45 days
2
4 after any eueh motion has been denied. The parties request this transfer because the plaintiffs in
25 Bmuch, ei al. v. Ima! Corp., N0. C 05-2743 (BZ) (ND. Cal., filed July 5, 2005), a related matter, =
26 ' · .
_ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE p Q
smaamzz.1 ;
» · I

JUL 20- 2005 é&&U%%mMé£@@¥nl°l%l¥TE>@¤’i¤H¤.¤i£¤»&¤@543Hl@1l mimi/gmc IFQS ii! @54
1 have filed a petition to coordinate or consolidatze pre-trial proceedings per 28 U.S.C. Solution l
2 1407, and the above-styled action has been identified as a related action to that pctitionj As a I
3 result the outcome of the pending petition will impact significantly the schedule of this lease. ' I
4 This is the tim stipulation between the parties. Because this litigation jim
5 begun, granting such a stipulation will not have any negative impact on the schedule of this case. I
6 IT IS HEREBY $'I`IPULA'1"ED, I .
_I_ DATED: July L, 2005 {
B- I Binglurn Mccuwhen LLP E
9 · 2
w E .
_ By: = ;
11 Y 1; FUYUN0 5 5
A me for Defendant _ 2
I I 12 Iriteiiglorpcrexion ~ I
I 13 i
14 I I
15 Law Ofhccs of Jeffrey F. Keller I
16 i ` E
I 17 . By; {avr- . _ `
I 8 JEFFREY F. KELLER ' E
Attorneys for Pleintif ' E
19 ` Mme I. Prohics I I
20 I ' .
. 2* 1 Q
22 _ i I
23
.
25 I
26 ‘ . ?
2 I I i I
STIPULATION Arm tpnorosxu] ormmz TO commu: nesrouss nxm · §
ssmmmi `
-