Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02117/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02117-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE

 BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02117-HSG 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

Peter A. Wald (Bar No. 85705) 

Marcy C. Priedeman (Bar No. 258505) 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 

Telephone: (415) 391-0600 

Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 

Email: peter.wald@lw.com

Email: marcy.priedeman@lw.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

DOMETIC CORPORATION and DOMETIC LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

CATHERINE PAPASAN, NELSON 

GOEHLE, ANDREW YOUNG, JIMMY 

BYERS, CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON, and 

all persons similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

DOMETIC CORPORATION and 

DOMETIC LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:16-cv-02117-HSG 

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 

Case 4:16-cv-02117-HSG Document 23 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE

 BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02117-HSG 

Plaintiffs Catherine Papasan, Nelson Goehle, Andrew Young, Jimmy Byers, and 

Christopher Johnston (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and defendants Dometic Corporation and 

Dometic LLC (jointly, “Defendants”), through their respective attorneys of record herein and 

without waiving any rights, claims, or defenses they have in this action, enter into this 

stipulation, with reference to the following circumstances: 

 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 21, 2016; 

 WHEREAS, Defendants were served on April 27, 2016; 

 WHEREAS, the parties have not previously stipulated to any extension of time to answer 

or otherwise respond to the Complaint. 

 WHEREAS, Defendants’ response to the Complaint is currently due May 18, 2016; 

 WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have conferred and have agreed to extend the time 

for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by thirty (30) days; 

 WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have also conferred and agreed to a briefing schedule 

assuming Defendants file a motion to dismiss; and 

 WHEREAS, this thirty (30) day extension to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the 

extended motion to dismiss briefing schedule will not affect the Initial Case Management 

Conference, currently scheduled for July 21, 2016. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties, by 

and through their counsel of record, as follows: 

1. Defendants shall file a response to the Complaint by June 17, 2016. 

2. If Defendants’ response to the Complaint is a motion to dismiss, and if Plaintiffs 

do not file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15 in response to such motion 

to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the motion to dismiss by 

July 22, 2016. 

3. If Plaintiffs file an opposition to the motion to dismiss and not an amended 

complaint, Defendants shall file any reply brief by August 12, 2016. 

4. This extension does not affect any of the dates scheduled by the Court pursuant to 

the Initial Case Management Scheduling Order, entered on April 22, 2016. 

Case 4:16-cv-02117-HSG Document 23 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE

 BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02117-HSG 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 

Dated: May 2, 2016 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Peter A. Wald 

Marcy C. Priedeman 

By: /s/ Peter A. Wald 

505 Montgomery St., Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 391-0600 

Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 

peter.wald@lw.com 

marcy.priedeman@lw.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Dometic Corporation and 

Dometic LLC 

Dated: May 2, 2016 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice ) 

Thomas E. Loeser 

Ashley A. Bede (pro hac vice)

By: /s/ Steven W. Berman 

 

1918 Eight Avenue, Suite 3300 

Seattle, WA 998101 

Telephone: (206) 623-7292 

Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 

steve@hbsslaw.com 

toml@hbsslaw.com 

ashleyb@hbsslaw.com 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

Jeff D. Friedman 

715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 

Berkeley, CA 94710 

Telephone: (510) 725-3000 

Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 

jefff@hbsslaw.com 

Case 4:16-cv-02117-HSG Document 23 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE

 BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-02117-HSG 

LAW OFFICES OF TERRENCE A. BEARD 

Terrence A. Beard 

525 Marina Blvd. 

Pittsburg, CA 94565 

Telephone: (925) 778-1060 

Facsimile: (925) 473-9098 

TBeard1053@aol.com 

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 

 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), counsel for Defendants has obtained the 

concurrence of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Steven W. Berman, in the filing of this stipulation. 

Dated: May 2, 2016 /s/ Peter A. Wald 

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 3, 2016 

 The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

Case 4:16-cv-02117-HSG Document 23 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 4