Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07587/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07587-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 

Case No. C 06 7587 SC 

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

JOHN BLIM (PRO HAC VICE) 

john@blimlaw.com 

JAY EDELSON (PRO HAC VICE) 

MYLES MCGUIRE (Of Counsel) (PRO HAC VICE) 

BLIM & EDELSON, LLC 

53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1642 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Telephone: (312) 913-9400 

Facsimile: (312) 913-9401 

JOHN G. JACOBS (PRO HAC VICE) 

jgjacobs@thejacobslawfirm.com 

BRYAN G. KOLTON (PRO HAC VICE) 

THE JACOBS LAW FIRM, CHTD. 

122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: (312) 427-4000 

Facsimile: (312) 427-1850 

TERRY M. GORDON - SBN 75604 

tgordon@tgordonlaw.com 

LAW OFFICES OF TERRY M. GORDON 

Three Harbor Drive, Suite 317 

Sausalito, California 94965 

Telephone: (415) 331-3601 

Facsimile: (415) 331-1225 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ALIZA VALDEZ, individually and on behalf 

of a class of similarly situated individuals, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, a 

Kansas corporation 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 06 7587 SC 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO 

CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Judge: The Hon. Samuel Conti 

Date: March 23, 2007 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Crtrm.: 1, 17th Floor 

Complaint Filed: December 12, 2006

Case 3:06-cv-07587-SC Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 1 of 4
Plaintiff Aliza Valdez (“Valdez”) and Defendant Sprint Nextel Corporation 

(“Sprint”) by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate to the following: 

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

 WHEREAS, on March 2, 2007, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order 

selecting private mediation, and by this Court’s Order entered March 5, 2007, the parties 

have been directed to complete that mediation within 90 days. The parties intend to conduct 

a mediation within the next 60 days. Sprint has agreed to provide informal discovery during 

this time period so that Plaintiff can fully evaluate her settlement position; 

 WHEREAS, the Court’s Case Management Conference is scheduled for March 23, 

2007; and 

WHEREAS on March 16, 2007, the parties filed their Joint Rule 26(F) Report Case 

Management Conference Statement and Proposed Case Management Order, in which they 

stated:

1) The parties strongly believe that this matter can and will be resolved through an 

early mediation. The parties have agreed to exchange information before the 

mediation (in particular, billing data and other information from Sprint) as well as 

to confirmatory discovery, if a settlement is reached, after the mediation. 

Therefore, the parties have agreed to temporarily suspend the formal initial 

disclosure requirements until after a mediation is scheduled or until one of the 

parties decides that it wishes to go forward with initial disclosures; and 

2) Because the parties are engaging in private mediation and because they are 

optimistic that such mediation efforts will be successful, they suggest that this 

hearing be postponed until May of 2007; and 

 WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing agreements among counsel, including Sprint’s 

commitment to voluntarily make disclosures sufficient to enable Plaintiff to “fully evaluate 

her settlement position” and the stated joint belief of the parties that the mediation efforts 

“will be successful”, a Case Management Conference next week would not be an efficient or 

28

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 

Case No. C 06 7587 SC

2 

Case 3:06-cv-07587-SC Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 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

productive use of this Court’s heavy docket and it is in the interest of both judicial economy 

and the parties’ resources to continue the initial Case Management Conference until late 

May, 2007. 

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS; 

 The parties jointly request that the Court continue the initial Case Management 

Conference for at least sixty (60) days to enable the parties to engage in the mediation to 

which they have agreed. 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER 

 & HEDGES 

Dated: March 16, 2007 By /s/ Michael T. Lifrak 

 DOMINIC SURPRENANT 

 MICHAEL T. LIFRAK 

 Attorneys for Defendant Sprint Nextel Corp. 

 LAW OFFICES OF TERRY M. GORDON 

 

 

Dated: March 16, 2007 By: /s/ Terry M. Gordon 

 TERRY M. GORDON 

 One of the Attorneys for ALIZA VALDEZ, 

 individually and on behalf of a class of similarly 

 situated individuals 

 

28

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 

Case No. C 06 7587 SC

3 

Case 3:06-cv-07587-SC Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 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

 PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED REQUEST, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Court’s Case Management Conference is rescheduled to 

___________________, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. 

Dated: ____________________ _______________________________________ 

 The Honorable Samuel Conti 

 United States District Court Judge 

28

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 

Case No. C 06 7587 SC

4 

June 29 3/19/07

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:06-cv-07587-SC Document 19 Filed 03/20/07 Page 4 of 4