Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01559/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01559-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

WITHDRAW 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 

Shanda Y. Lowe, Bar No. 278602

slowe@fordharrison.com 

Tiffany D. Downs, pro hac vice

tdowns@fordharrison.com 

FORD & HARRISON, LLP 

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: 213-237-2400 

Facsimile: 213-237-2401 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SKY CHEFS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff ERIC 

DMUCHOWSKY and defendant SKY CHEFS, INC., by and through their respective 

counsel, that defendant’s Reply To Plaintiff’s Opposition To Sky Chef’s Motion For 

Judgment On The Record, filed as Docket No. 47, is hereby withdrawn and shall not 

be considered by the Court in its ruling on the Parties’ Rule 52 motions. 

Good cause exists for the stipulation as follows: 

In the Court’s Scheduling Order of June 20, 2018 [Dkt. 28], the Court set a 

briefing schedule regarding Rule 52 Motions. In that Order, the Court set deadlines 

for the Parties’ Opening Briefs and Responsive Briefs. Pursuant to that Order, the 

total number of briefs allowed for each party is to be two briefs.. However, when 

Defendant filed its motion, the Court docket system generated a notice and deadline 

ERIC DMUCHOWSKY,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SKY CHEFS, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 4:18-cv-01559-HSG

STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

WITHDRAW DEFENDANT’S 

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S 

OPPOSITION TO SKY CHEF’S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON 

THE RECORD [DKT. 47] 

Motion Hearing: December 13, 2018

Case 4:18-cv-01559-HSG Document 53 Filed 12/06/18 Page 1 of 2
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 -2- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

WITHDRAW DEFENDANT’S REPLY 

for filing a reply memorandum. As reply memoranda are allowed under the Local 

Civil Rules and based on the Court docket notice [Dkt. 44], Defendant filed a reply 

memorandum in support of its Rule 52 Motion. After consultation with plaintiff’s 

counsel, defendant agreed to withdraw its reply memorandum filed on November 

30, 2018. [Dkt 48]. As such, the Parties stipulate to the withdrawal of defendant’s 

Reply To Plaintiff’s Opposition To Sky Chef’s Motion For Judgment On The 

Record. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: December 6, 2018 KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 

By: /s/ Brent Dorian Brehm

Brent Dorian Brehm 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ERIC DMUCHOWSKY 

DATED: December 6, 2018 FORD & HARRISON, LLP

By: /s/Tiffany D. Downs

Tiffany D. Downs, pro hac vice 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ERIC DMUCHOWSKY 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SKY CHEFS, INC. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _____________ ___________________________ 

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

12/6/2018

Case 4:18-cv-01559-HSG Document 53 Filed 12/06/18 Page 2 of 2