Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05555/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05555-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

[CASE NO. C 09-05555 RS] Page 1

#1070331 

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

27

28

Margaret E. Hasselman – CA State Bar No. 228529 

Nina Wasow – CA State Bar No. 242047 

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.

1330 Broadway, Suite 1800 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 839-6824 

Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 

Email: mhasselman@lewisfeinberg.com 

Email: nwasow@lewisfeinberg.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

RICHARD FALCONE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DLA PIPER US LLP PROFIT SHARING 

AND 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN 

COMMITTEE; CAROL BUSS; LAWRENCE 

A. ROBINS; BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A.; 

and DOES 1-100. 

 Defendants. 

 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C 09-05555 RS 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME 

FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff RICHARD FALCONE (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants DLA PIPER US LLP 

PROFIT SHARING AND 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE, CAROL BUSS, 

LAWRENCE A. ROBINS and BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A. (“Defendants”) hereby stipulate, 

by and through their respective counsel, to extend the time by which all Defendants must file a 

response to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Pursuant to this stipulation, Defendants shall file 

*E-Filed 3/24/10*

Case 3:09-cv-05555-RS Document 23 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

[CASE NO. C 09-05555 RS] Page 2

#1070331 

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

27

28

their response on or before April 22, 2010. The parties request this extension to respond for the 

following reasons: 

1. This case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Chen. Defendants timely 

filed their Declination to Proceed before a Magistrate on February 10, 2010. 

2. While reassignment to a district court judge was pending, Defendants timely filed 

a Motion to Dismiss in response to Plaintiff’s Complaint on February 12, 2010. The case was 

reassigned to Judge Patel on February 17, 2010, and the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was 

vacated. 

3. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 5, 2010. The parties stipulated, 

and the Court ordered, that Defendants would have until April 5, 2010, to answer or otherwise 

respond to the Amended Complaint. The case was reassigned to Judge Seeborg on March 18, 

2010. 

4. To preserve Defendants’ option to file a Motion to Dismiss the Amended 

Complaint, and to accommodate Plaintiff’s counsel’s schedule for responding to any such 

Motion, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to allow Defendants to file their response to the 

Amended Complaint by April 22, 2010. 

The parties have made two previous modifications to the case schedule by stipulation, 

one which extended the time to respond to the initial Complaint and one which extended the time 

to respond to the Amended Complaint. This extension will not alter any other dates or deadlines 

set by Court order. 

Dated: March 24, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, 

 RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.

 By: /s/Margaret Hasselman (as authorized on 3/24/10)

 Margaret Hasselman 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 3:09-cv-05555-RS Document 23 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

[CASE NO. C 09-05555 RS] Page 3

#1070331 

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

27

28

Dated: March 24, 2010 TRUCKER HUSS APC 

 By: /s/Clarissa A. Kang 

 Clarissa A. Kang 

 Attorneys for Defendants

 I attest that my firm has obtained Ms. Hasselman’s concurrence in the filing of this 

document. 

DATED: March 24, 2010 

/s/Clarissa A. Kang 

Clarissa A. Kang 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

United States District Court Judge 

03/24/10

Case 3:09-cv-05555-RS Document 23 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 3