Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03035/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

DB2/20781844.2 1 Case No. CV-08-2907-MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

DANIEL KEATING-TRAYNOR on 

behalf of himself and all others similarly 

situated; 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

AC SQUARE INC.; COMCAST INC.; 

AFSHIN GHANEH; ANDREW 

BAHMANYAR; AND DOES 1-60 

INCLUSIVE; 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV-08-2907-MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO ALLOW COMCAST INC. TO 

FILE ITS MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PRIOR TO 

THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Honorable Marilyn H. Patel 

 

 Plaintiff Daniel Keating-Traynor, by and through his attorney, Daniel Berko, and 

Defendant Comcast Inc. (“Comcast”) by and through its attorneys Morgan, Lewis and Bockius 

LLP, hereby stipulate as follows: 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:08-cv-03035-MHP Document 25 Filed 08/05/08 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 

DB2/20781844.2 2 Case No. CV-08-2907-MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

RECITALS

 A. On June 11, 2008, the Court set the Initial Case Management Conference in this 

action for September 14, 2008. See Docket No. 2 (Case No. CV-08-2907-MHP). 

 B. On July 10, 2008, Plaintiff served Comcast with the Summons and Complaint in 

this action. 

 C On July 11, 2008, Defendants AC Square, Ghaneh, and Bahmanyar filed Ex Parte 

Applications for Orders Allowing Defendants to File and Have Heard Motions to Dismiss 

Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) Prior to Initial Case Management Conference in Case No. CV-08-

2907- MPH. See Docket Nos. 7, 8, and 9 (Case No. CV-08-2907-MHP). 

 D. On July 15, 2008, the Court granted Defendants AC Square, Ghaneh, and 

Bahmanyar’s Ex Parte Applications for leave to file their motions to dismiss by July 21, 2008. 

The Court set the following related dates: Oppositions to be filed by August 4, 2008, Replies to 

be filed by August 11, 2008, and Motion to be heard on August 25, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. See Docket 

No. 10 (Case No. CV-08-2907-MHP). 

 E. On or about July 15, 2008, the parties agreed to an extension of time for Comcast 

to file a response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, up to and including July 30, 2008. 

 F. On July 16, 2008, the Court ordered Case No. CV-08-2907 and Case No. CV-08-

3035 related. See Docket No. 11 (Case No. CV-08-2907-MHP) and No. 16 (Case No. CV-08-

3035-EDL). 

 G. On July 17, 2008, Case No. CV-08-3035-EDL was reassigned to the Honorable 

Judge Marilyn H. Patel. 

 H. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i) requires a defendant to file an 

answer to a complaint within 20 days after being served, and that Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure, Rule 12(b) allows a defendant to serve a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. The 

parties further agree that absent a Court Order allowing for an exception, Standing Order Number 

4 prevents Defendant from filing the accompanying motion to dismiss until after the Initial Case 

Management Conference on September 15, 2008. 

Case 3:08-cv-03035-MHP Document 25 Filed 08/05/08 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 

DB2/20781844.2 3 Case No. CV-08-2907-MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TERMS OF STIPULATION

 1. The parties jointly request that the Court allow Comcast to have its motion to 

dismiss heard before the Initial Case Management Conference set for September 15, 2008 (Case 

No. CV-08-2907-MHP). 

 2. Defendant’s motion seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, in its entirety, 

without leave to amend. Should the Court decide to dispose of Plaintiff’s claims against Comcast 

prior to the Initial Case Management Conference, Comcast could avoid incurring legal fees and 

costs by not having to file an answer or make initial disclosures. 

 3. The parties recognize that this Court granted on July 15, 2008 an ex parte motion 

the other defendants brought for this same purpose in this action, and believe it should not be 

necessary to burden the Court with another such motion. 

 4. Based on the foregoing and in the interest of judicial economy, the parties agree 

that Defendant should be allowed to file its motion at the earliest possible stage of this litigation. 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: July 30, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL BERKO 

By /s/ Daniel Berko 

Daniel Berko 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Daniel Keating-Traynor 

 

Dated: July 30, 2008 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

By /s/ Daryl S. Landy 

Daryl S. Landy 

Attorneys for Defendant 

COMCAST INC. 

Case 3:08-cv-03035-MHP Document 25 Filed 08/05/08 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 

DB2/20781844.2 4 Case No. CV-08-2907-MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED that: 

 The parties’ request to allow Defendant to file the attached Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Complaint is granted. Defendant shall file and serve the motion by no later than 

_________________, 2008. The hearing on this motion is set for September 8, 2008, at 2:00 

p.m. Any opposition to the motion shall be filed and served by __________________, 2008. 

Any reply to the opposition shall be filed and served by ________________, 2008. 

Dated: ___________________ By: _____________________________ 

 United States District Court Judge 

15 August 11 August 25 September 2

August 1, 2008

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:08-cv-03035-MHP Document 25 Filed 08/05/08 Page 4 of 4