` 1 Bingham M¢Cut¤hen LLP . l
DAVID M. BALABANIAN (SBN 373 63) _ .
2 CI·IRISTOPHE.R B. HOCKETT [SBN 121539) j
JOY K. FUYUNO (SBN 193390) - ‘ I
3 Tlmee Embarcadero Center :
Sm Francisco, CA 94111-4067
4 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 ·
Facsimile: (415) 393-2286
`
Attorneys for Defendant .
6 Intel Cerpnrntion `
7 _ `
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTI-IBRN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ;
10 ` SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION `
1 1 _ ? · ;
12 SUSAN BAXLEY, individually and on behalf uf N0. C-05-2758 I
all 0therS similarly situated, , ;
13 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
Plaintiff, ORDER TO CONTINUE FILING DATE
14 v. · FOR DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO ·
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
15 INTEL QORPORATION, a Delaware
eorporauun, _
16 .
'DGfG[1dZHI. g
17 ,
18 IT IS STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THROUGH ’1"1·IElR `
] .
9 COUNSEL AS FOLLOWS: - “
20
Pur uant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaiutiif Susan Bexley and Defeudantllntel
1 V 1 i
2 C0rp01*&titm hereby stipulate that Intel C0rp¤t‘ati0n's response to Plaintiffs complaint ehall be _
22 due either 60 days after transfer ef the above captioned case pu:r¤ua.nt to any motion to ieenrdinate `
Z3 nr consolidate pre·tria1 proceedings per 28 `U.S.C. Section 1407 01*, in the nlterrlative, 45 days
24 alter any such motion has been denied. The pnrti —< request this transfer because the plaintiffs in ;
25- · 2 .
Branch. er al. v. Intel Corp., N0. C 05-2743 (BZ) (N.D. Cul., tiled July 5, 2005), a related matter,
26 Q
· I E
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER T0 00N"1‘l'N'U‘B RESPONSE DATE - ' E
i s1=mc21•¤¤.1 Z ,
= E
1 U ¤¤ MG-eats mentssstilsttstoslmstiieszeeswsesegoss nltgnsséz, 13/ its _
1 have Bled a petition to coordinate or consolidate pro-trial proceedings per 28 U.S.C. Seeltion
2 1407, and the above-styled action has been identitied ss a related notion to that petition. * As a
3 result the outcome of the pending petition will impact sig·¤ii·leant1y the schedule of this ease. °
4 This is the first stipulation between the parties. Because this litigation has just
5 begun, granting such s stipulation will not have any negative impact on the schedule of this case. .
‘ §‘§"~él~‘?"i“""‘°"`§3¤“2""`Bâ€Â· t
A : ’ J
7 “"/-1 i
8 _ Bingham Mcihltclten LLP l
9 . .
10 · Q
· By: =
11 Jov 1··uYUNo . e
— ttorusy for Defendant V
12 Intel Corporation
13 I I
14 I : ‘
15 Law Offices cfleffrey F. Keller ` E
is .t»-··"- ` l
,1-·"'-ff · '
1 7 Bw I 1 ‘ T
18 F. KELLER '
. · Attorneys for Plaintiff 5
1 9 Susan Bexley ·
zo · Q I
21 ’
zz E E
23 3 E
24 ` I i
25 t ‘ i Y
zs ' . 1
2 I 1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] oxmtu T0 cowrmus ttssmnss DATE _
SF/.Z1I2`/460.1 ' l
‘ ~ I
I
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms