Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05189/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

Case No. 5:14-cv-05189-BLF

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Deadlines to File Plaintiff’s 

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion Dismiss and Defendant’s Reply 

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

Anthony J. Orshansky, Cal. Bar No. 199364

anthony@counselonegroup.com

COUNSELONE, PC

9301 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 650 

Beverly Hills, California 90210

Telephone: (310) 277-9945

Facsimile: (424) 277-3727

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

KELLY ROMERO, on behalf of herself 

and others similarly situated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

KELLY ROMERO, on behalf of herself and 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, dba NATURE’S 

OWN, a Georgia corporation, and DOES 1 

through 50, inclusive,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:14-cv-05189-BLF

CLASS ACTION

[Assigned to the Honorable Beth Labson 

Freeman] 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINES

TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION 

TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND DEFENDANT’S REPLY

Case 5:14-cv-05189-BLF Document 16 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 3
- 1 -

Case No. 5:14-cv-05189-BLF

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Deadlines to File Plaintiff’s 

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion Dismiss and Defendant’s Reply 

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

COMES NOW Plaintiff Kelly Romero (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Flowers Bakeries, 

LLC, dba Nature’s Own (“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel, to hereby 

stipulate to continue the deadlines for Plaintiff to file her Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss or Stay Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (the “Motion to Dismiss”) and 

Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition.

WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on January 2, 

2015;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is due to be filed by

January 16, 2015;

WHEREAS, Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition is due to be filed by January 23, 

2015; 

WHEREAS, the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss currently is scheduled for April 16, 

2015; 

WHEREAS, the parties have stipulated to enlarge the time to file the Opposition and Reply 

briefs;

WHEREAS, no previous modifications have been requested regarding this matter;

WHEREAS, the parties request that the Court grant short extensions of time to file the 

Opposition and Reply to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; 

WHEREAS, the requested extensions do not require the Court to continue the date of 

hearing, which is set for April 16, 2015;

WHEREAS, there is good cause for enlarging the time to file the Opposition and Reply 

briefs because additional time is required to allow counsel to prepare papers that adequately 

represent their respective clients’ interests, as well as because the parties are meeting and 

conferring regarding the Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by the parties, through their respective 

counsel of record, that the date by which Plaintiff must file her Opposition to Defendant’s Motion 

to Dismiss shall be continued for three weeks, from January 16, 2015 through and including 

Case 5:14-cv-05189-BLF Document 16 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 3
- 2 -

Case No. 5:14-cv-05189-BLF

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Deadlines to File Plaintiff’s 

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion Dismiss and Defendant’s Reply 

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

February 6, 2015, and the time in which Defendant must file its Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition

shall be extended from one week to two weeks following the filing of Plaintiff’s Opposition, from 

February 13, 2015 through and including February 20, 2015. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: January 9, 2015

COUNSELONE, PC

/s/ Anthony J. Orshansky

Anthony J. Orshansky

Attorney for Plaintiff

KELLY ROMERO

Dated: January 9, 2015 

CROWELL & MORING LLP

/s/ Joel D. Smith____ 

Jennifer S. Romano

Joel D. Smith

Attorneys for Defendant

FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC dba 

NATURE’S OWN

Anthony J. Orshansky attests that Joel D. Smith has consented to the filing of this

document.

/s/ Anthony J. Orshansky

 Anthony J. Orshansky

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ____________________ By: ________________________

Beth Labson Freeman

United States District Judge

January 12, 2015 

Case 5:14-cv-05189-BLF Document 16 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 3