Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01358/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01358-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1145 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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 REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &

BIRNEY LLP 

William A. Gould (SBN 035446) 

Daniel L. Baxter (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Tel: (916) 441-2430 

Fax: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for Defendants

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

Lynn Hubbard III (SBN 69773) 

Scottlynn J Hubbard (SBN 212970) 

12 Williamsburg Lane 

Chico, California 95926 

Tel: (530) 895-3252 

Fax: (530) 894-8244 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs James 

DeFazio, Theresa Beetham, Brenda 

Dimaro, DeLane Humphries, Hallie 

Lavick, Michael McNair, Sonya Pace, 

Judy Seay, Nancy Russell Stanton, 

and Cindy Wirth

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES P. DeFAZIO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER, INC. et. al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: CIV.S-04-1358 WBS GGH 

[Consolidated Master Case Number] 

STIPULATION REGARDING TIMING 

OF DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS TO 

THE DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Judge William B. Shubb 

Complaint 

Filed: July 15, 2004 

KATHLEEN ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED et al., 

Defendants. 

Complaint 

Filed: March 22, 2005 

BRENDA DIMARO and 

HOLLIE LAVICK, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants. 

Complaint 

Filed: August 25, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 341 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 6
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 REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs James P. DeFazio, et al., (“DeFazio”) and defendants, by their 

respective attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 

1. On April 8, 2008, the Court entered an Order granting in part and 

denying in part motions to strike and dismiss directed to the Fourth Amended 

Complaints of DeFazio and the other plaintiffs. (Dkt. # 333) The April 8, 2008 

Order permitted, but did not require, plaintiffs to file Fifth Amended Complaints 

within 30 days of the date of that Order (by May 8, 2008). 

2. Under Rule 12(a)(4)(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., defendants’ Answers to the Fourth 

Amended Complaint would be due on April 22, 2008. 

3. However, DeFazio filed a Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended 

Complaint (Dkt. # 337),1 so the Answers to the Fourth Amended Complaint may 

become moot. 

4. DeFazio and defendants have agreed that the filing by defendants of 

Answers to the DeFazio Fourth Amended Complaint may be deferred pending this 

Court’s ruling on DeFazio’s Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Complaint. 

Should this Court deny DeFazio’s Motion, defendants will file their Answers to the 

Fourth Amended Complaint within 7 calendar days of the Court’s Order. If the 

Court grants DeFazio’s Motion, defendants will not be required to Answer the 

Fourth Amended Complaint, and will (pursuant to Rule 15(a)(3) and 16(b), 

Fed.R.Civ.P.) answer or otherwise plead to the Fifth Amended Complaint within 10 

business days of the filing of the Fifth Amended Complaint. 

5. The parties further stipulate that the Fourth Amended Complaint will 

remain in effect—notwithstanding the stipulated extension for filing Answers or 

DeFazio’s pending Motion—for the purposes of discovery and law and motion. 

 

1

 Shortly before the filing of this stipulation, DeFazio withdrew his Motion for Leave to 

Amend (Dkt. # 338), but, through counsel, has indicated to defense counsel that he intends 

to re-file a Motion for Leave to Amend in order to add additional claims to the proposed 

Fifth Amended Complaint. DeFazio’s counsel has advised that a new Motion for Leave to 

Amend will be filed on or before May 7, 2008. 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 341 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 6
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 

-3- ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

DATED: April 22, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

By: /s/ Scottlynn J Hubbard 

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD 

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

Lynn Hubbard III (SBN 69773) 

Scottlynn J Hubbard (SBN 212970) 

12 Williamsburg Lane 

Chico, California 95926 

Tel: (530) 895-3252 

Fax: (530) 894-8244 

SCHUYLER ROCHE, P.C. 

By: /s/ L. Andrew Brehm 

L. ANDREW BREHM 

Attorneys for Defendants 

THE FIRM OF JOHN DICKINSON 

SCHNEIDER, INC., HOLLISTER 

INCORPORATED and ALAN F. HERBERT 

SCHUYLER ROCHE, P.C. 

MICHAEL B. ROCHE (admitted pro hac vice) 

L. ANDREW BREHM (admitted pro hac vice) 

Suite 3800, One Prudential Plaza 

130 East Randolph Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Tel: (312) 565-2400 

Fax: (312) 565-8300 

 ADDUCCI, DORF, LEHNER, MITCHELL 

 & BLANKENSHIP, P.C. 

By: /s/ James D. Adducci 

JAMES D. ADDUCCI 

Attorneys for Defendants, 

SAMUEL P. BRILLIANT, DONALD K. 

GRONEBERG, CHARLES H. 

GUNDERSON, ALAN F. HERBERT, 

JAMES A. KARLOVSKY, LORI 

KELLEHER, JAMES J. MCCORMACK, 

CHARLES C. SCHELLENTRAGER, 

HOWARD I. SIMON and RICHARD T. 

ZWIRNER 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 341 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 6
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 

-4- ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 

 By: /s/ James Ducayet 

 JAMES W. DUCAYET 

 Attorneys for Defendants, 

MICHAEL C. WINN and LORETTA L. 

STEMPINSKI 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

WILLIAM F. CONLON (admitted pro hac vice) 

JAMES W. DUCAYET (admitted pro hac vice) 

MIKE BARTOLIC (admitted pro hac vice) 

One South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Tel: (312) 853-7000 

Fax: (312) 853-7036 

Co-counsel for all Defendants: 

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP WILLIAM A. GOULD (SBN 

035446) 

DANIEL L. BAXTER (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 

Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for Defendants 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 341 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 6
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 

 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

----oo0oo---- 

JAMES P. DEFAZIO, et al., 

 

 Plaintiffs, NOS. CIV. S-04-1358 WBS GGH 

 S-05-0559 WBS GGH 

 v. S-05-1726 WBS GGH 

 CONSOLIDATED 

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

ORDER RE: STIPULATION REGARDING ANSWERS TO THE 

DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs James P. DeFazio et al. (“DeFazio”) and defendants, in accordance 

with the parties’ stipulation, are hereby Ordered as follows: 

 1. On April 8, 2008, the Court entered an Order granting in part and 

denying in part motions to strike and dismiss directed to the Fourth Amended 

Complaints of DeFazio and the other plaintiffs. (Dkt. # 333) The April 8, 2008 

Order permitted, but did not require, plaintiffs to file Fifth Amended Complaints 

within 30 days of the date of that Order (by May 8, 2008). 

 2. Under Rule 12(a)(4)(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., defendants’ Answers to the Fourth 

Amended Complaint would be due on April 22, 2008. 

 3. However, DeFazio filed a Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended 

Complaint (Dkt. # 337),1

 so the Answers to the Fourth Amended Complaint may 

become moot. 

 

1

 Shortly before the filing of this stipulation, DeFazio withdrew his Motion for Leave to 

Amend (Dkt. # 338), but, through counsel, has indicated to defense counsel that he intends 

to re-file a Motion for Leave to Amend in order to add additional claims to the proposed 

Fifth Amended Complaint. DeFazio’s counsel has advised that a new Motion for Leave to 

Amend will be filed on or before May 7, 2008. 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 341 Filed 04/29/08 Page 5 of 6
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-

 4. DeFazio and defendants have agreed that the filing by defendants of 

Answers to the DeFazio Fourth Amended Complaint may be deferred pending this 

Court’s ruling on DeFazio’s Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Complaint. 

Should this Court deny DeFazio’s Motion, defendants will file their Answers to the 

Fourth Amended Complaint within 7 calendar days of the Court’s Order. If the 

Court grants DeFazio’s Motion, defendants will not be required to Answer the 

Fourth Amended Complaint, and will (pursuant to Rule 15(a)(3) and 16(b), 

Fed.R.Civ.P.) answer or otherwise plead to the Fifth Amended Complaint within 10 

business days of the filing of the Fifth Amended Complaint. 

 5. The parties further stipulate that the Fourth Amended Complaint will 

remain in effect—notwithstanding the stipulated extension for filing Answers or 

DeFazio’s pending Motion—for the purposes of discovery and law and motion. 

 The foregoing stipulation is approved by the Court, and defendants’ 

responsive pleading to DeFazio’s Fourth Amended Complaint or Fifth Amended 

Complaint (as the case may be) shall be filed at the time set forth in the parties’ 

Stipulation. 

Dated: April 29, 2008 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 341 Filed 04/29/08 Page 6 of 6