Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05856/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05856-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

Matthew C. Helland, CA Bar No. 250451

NICHOLS KASTER, LLP

One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 277-7235

Facsimile: (415) 277-7238

helland@nka.com

Adam W. Hansen, CA Bar No. 264241

APOLLO LAW, LLC

400 South 4th Street, Suite 401M – 250

Minneapolis, MN 94415

Telephone: (612) 927-2969

Facsimile: (419) 793-1804

adam@apollo-law.com

Kai H. Richter, MN Bar No. 0296545*

Brock Specht, MN Bar No. 0388343*

NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP

4600 IDS Center, 80 S. Eighth Street

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Telephone: (612)256-3278

Facsimile: (612) 338-4878

krichter@nka.com

bspecht@nka.com

*admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RANDALL HOLL,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05856-HSG

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

ARBITRATION

Motion to Compel filed: December 19, 

2016

Current opposition due: January 3, 

2017

New opposition due: January 18, 2017

Current reply due: January 10, 2017

New reply due: February 1, 2017

Hearing date: February 16, 2017 at 

Case 4:16-cv-05856-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 7
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 2 

2:00 p.m.

Case 4:16-cv-05856-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 7
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 1

STIPULATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff Randall Holl and Defendant United 

Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on October 11, 2016, and served 

UPS with the Complaint on October 20, 2016;

WHEREAS, on November 4, 2016, the parties stipulated and agreed to extend UPS’s

deadline to respond to the Complaint until December 19, 2016;

WHEREAS, UPS filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration of Plaintiff Randall Holl’s claims 

on December 19, 2016 and noticed the motion for hearing on February 16, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s response to the motion to compel arbitration is currently due 

January 3, 2017;

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred, and agree that Plaintiff’s deadline to file 

a response to Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration may be extended until January 18, 2017, 

with UPS’s deadline to reply extended until February 1, 2017;

WHEREAS, good cause exists for an extension of Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the 

motion to compel arbitration because the extension will provide Plaintiff sufficient time to 

prepare its response in light of the upcoming holidays, and UPS’s request for an extension will 

provide UPS with sufficient time to prepare its response; and

WHEREAS, this is the first request for an extension of Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to 

the Motion to Compel Arbitration, UPS’s second request for an extension (UPS previously 

requested an extension of time to file its initial response to Plaintiff’s Complaint), the extensions

will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order, and this request 

is not being made for purposes of delay or any other improper purpose;

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED, subject to the approval 

of the Court, that Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration 

shall be extended to January 18, 2017, and UPS shall have until February 1, 2017 to file a reply 

brief.

Case 4:16-cv-05856-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/22/16 Page 3 of 7
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 2 

Dated: December 21, 2016 KAI H. RICHTER

NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP

By: /s/ Kai H. Richter 

Kai H. Richter 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

RANDALL HOLL

Dated: December 21, 2016 STACEY M. SPRENKEL

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Stacey M. Sprenkel

Stacey M. Sprenkel

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

Case 4:16-cv-05856-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/22/16 Page 4 of 7
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 3 

ECF ATTESTATION

I, Kai H. Richter, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. In accordance with Civil Local 

Rule 5-1, concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Stacey Sprenkel, 

counsel for Defendant, and I shall maintain records to support this concurrence for subsequent 

production for the Court if so ordered or for inspection upon request by a party.

Dated: December 21, 2016 NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP

By: /s/ Kai H. Richter 

KAI H. RICHTER

Attorneys for Plaintiff

RANDALL HOLL

Case 4:16-cv-05856-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/22/16 Page 5 of 7
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 4 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: By:___________________________________

HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

12/22/2016

Case 4:16-cv-05856-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/22/16 Page 6 of 7
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 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 21st day of December, 2016, the foregoing 

document was filed electronically on the CM/ECF system, which caused all CM/ECF participants 

to be served by electronic means.

 /s/ Kai H. Richter 

KAI H. RICHTER 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

RANDALL HOLL

Case 4:16-cv-05856-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/22/16 Page 7 of 7