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


File Size: 72.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: July 20, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 443 Words, 2,934 Characters
Page Size: 614.4 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/35975/13-5.pdf

Download Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware ( 72.1 kB)


Preview Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware
J Ut ‘“· ‘““°oé%;%i §i*6§sso“éi§i%ltlihtU b“O*&.m‘“ `m.°ét 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 I _
San Francisco. CA 94111-4067 _
4 Telephone: $415) 393-2000 ‘ ‘
5 Facsimile: ( 15) 393-2286 . ‘ '
Attomeye for Defendant
6 Intel Corporetlml ·
. 7 _ l
8 - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT v `
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA , . J
10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION _
11 I
I2 MARIA I. PROHIAS, individually Bind on behalf No. C-05-2699 .
of all others similarly situated, _ . , ;
13 STIPULATION AND QPROPOSED] :
Plaintifll ORDER TO CO FILING DATE ;
14 v. FOR DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO
PLA]NTl'FF’S COMPLAINT a
15 INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware _
corporation,
I6 .
Defendant. i A
17 ‘ ‘
is · · ‘ i
IT IS STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR. · ‘
19
COUNSEL AS FOLLOWS: .
20
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintift`Maria I. Pruhias and Defendant Intel
21 .
Corporation hereby stipulate that Intel Corponnioxfs response to Plaintiffs complaint shall be
22 ?
due either 60 days mer trmsfer ofthe above captioned case pursuant to my motion to coordinate · 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 1
Bmuch, ei al. v. Ima! Corp., N0. C 05-2743 (BZ) (ND. Cal., tiled July 5, 2005), a related matter, =
26 ' · .
. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE p [
SPI21l27222.1 ;
· · T

JUL 2U· 20 Uindie?}¥i5$&\1sBciiiég§ilIulii$;li$iili>%gii»¤{¤1ign¢él·%43F%1adJmr2m2220e6 1 B! @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. _
6 IT IS HEREBY $'I`IP|JLA'1"ED, _ .
7 DATBDt July L, 2005
B- _ Bingham McCutchen LLP i
9 · 2
w E .
_ By: = ;
11 Y 1; FUYUN0 5 5
A me for Defendant _ 2
_ I 12 Iriteiiglorpcrexion ~ L
_ 13 i
14 I p
15 Law Ofhecs of Jeffrey F. Keller I
16 0 ` E
I 17 . By; {avr- . _ `
I 8 JEFFREY F. KELLER ' E
Attorneys for Pleintif ' E
19 ` Mme I. Prohics I {
20 _ ' .
. 2* 1 Q
22 _ i _
23
`
25 j
26 ‘ . ?
2 p Q i
STIPULATION Ann tpnorosxu] orwmz TO commu: rzesronss one · §
ssmmma `
.