Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05555/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05555-1/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.

---

Trucker

Ø Huss

A Professional Corporation

100 Montgomery Street, 23rd Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. C 09-0555 MHP

1

#1067865 

R. Bradford Huss, SBN 71303 

bhuss@truckerhuss.com 

Clarissa A. Kang, SBN 210660 

ckang@truckerhuss.com 

Michelle L. Schuller, SBN 255787 

mschuller@truckerhuss.com 

TRUCKER Ø HUSS 

A Professional Corporation 

100 Montgomery Street, 23rd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 788-3111 

Facsimile: (415) 421-2017 

Attorneys for Defendants 

DLA Piper US LLP Profit Sharing 

and 401(k) Savings Plan Committee, 

Carol Buss, Lawrence A. Robins 

and Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

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, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. C09-05555 MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO THE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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”) and Plaintiff RICHARD FALCONE (“Plaintiff”) 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 their response 

on or before April 5, 2010. Defendants’ request this extension to respond for the following 

reasons: 

Case 3:09-cv-05555-RS Document 20 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 3
Trucker

Ø Huss

A Professional Corporation

100 Montgomery Street, 23rd Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. C 09-0555 MHP

2

#1067865 

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 District Court Judge Patel on February 17, 2010, and a Case Management Conference 

was scheduled for March 29, 2010. The order reassigning the case vacated the hearing date that 

Defendants had noticed for the Motion to Dismiss and stated that such matters should be renoticed 

for hearing before Judge Patel. 

3. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on March 5, 2010. Under the Federal Rules, 

Defendants must respond to the Amended Complaint by March 19, 2010, which is before the 

March 29 Case Management Conference. 

4. The parties are aware of Item No. 4 of Judge Patel’s Standing Order, effective 

September 4, 2002, which states that “[m]otions to dismiss shall not be filed before the initial Case 

Management Conference except by leave of the court.” 

5. To comply with the Standing Order, preserve Defendants’ option to file a Motion to 

Dismiss, and avoid the potential expenditure of time and resources involved in the filing and 

hearing of an ex parte motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss before the March 29 Case 

Management Conference, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to allow Defendants to file their 

response to the Amended Complaint by April 5, 2010. 

The parties have made one previous modification to the case by stipulation, which extended 

the time to respond to the initial complaint. 

This extension will not alter any dates or deadlines set by Court order. 

DATED: March 15, 2010 

TRUCKER Ø HUSS 

By: /s/Clarissa A. Kang 

Clarissa A. Kang 

Attorneys for Defendants 

DLA Piper US LLP Profit Sharing and 401(k) 

Savings Plan Committee, Carol Buss, Lawrence 

A. Robins and Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. 

Case 3:09-cv-05555-RS Document 20 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 3
Trucker

Ø Huss

A Professional Corporation

100 Montgomery Street, 23rd Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. C 09-0555 MHP

3

#1067865 

DATED: March 15, 2010 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & 

 JACKSON, P.C. 

 

By: /s/Nina Wasow 

Nina Wasow 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Richard Falcone 

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

DATED: March 15, 2010 

/s/Clarissa A. Kang 

Clarissa A. Kang 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

MARILYN HALL PATEL 

United States District Court Judge 

3/16/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cv-05555-RS Document 20 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 3