Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00324/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00324-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK

FITZGERALD, PC

JACK FITZGERALD (SBN 257370)

jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

TREVOR M. FLYNN (SBN 253362)

trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

TRAN NGUYEN (SBN 301593)

tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

Hillcrest Professional Building

3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202

San Diego, California 92103

Phone: (619) 692-3840

Fax: (619) 362-9555

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 

Putative Class

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

DAVID C. ALLEN (SBN 190479)

david.allen@btlaw.com

KEVIN D. RISING

kevin.rising@btlaw.com

SARAH E. JOHNSTON

sarah.johnston@btlaw.com

JADE F. JURDI

jade.jurdi@btlaw.com

2029 Century Park East, Suite 300

Los Angeles, California 90067

Phone: (310) 284-3880

Fax: (310) 284-3894

Counsel for Defendant Walgreen Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY REYNOLDS and ROBERT 

MASON, on behalf of themselves and

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WALGREEN CO.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-cv-324-JSW

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER 

EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO 

RESPOND AND CONTINUING 

HEARING ON WALGREEN’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS

[N.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12]

Reynolds et al. v. Walgreen Co., No. 15-cv-324-JSW

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO MTD

Case 4:15-cv-00324-JSW Document 20 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 5 Case4:15-cv-00324-JSW Document19 Filed03/20/15 Page1 of 3
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

Pursuant to the United States District Court, Northern District of California Local 

Rules, Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-12, the parties stipulate as follows.

WHEREAS, plaintiff filed this action on January 23, 2015 (Dkt. No. 1), and defendant 

moved to dismiss it on March 11, 2015 (Dkt. No. 15);

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a), plaintiff’s response to defendant’s 

motion to dismiss is currently due on March 25, 2015;

WHEREAS, plaintiff has requested, and defendant has agreed, to a 14-day extension 

of plaintiff’s time to respond to the motion to dismiss;

WHEREAS, the parties agree there should be a corresponding continuance of the April 

17, 2015 hearing date defendant originally noticed;

WHEREAS, defendant is unavailable for a May 1, 2015 hearing; and

WHEREAS, no current Court-ordered event dates or deadlines are affected by this 

stipulation.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES:

Upon the Court’s Order, plaintiff’s deadline for responding to defendant’s motion to 

dismiss shall be April 8, 2015. Defendant’s deadline for filing a reply, if any, shall be April 

15, 2015. The hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss shall be continued to May 8, 2015.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: March 20, 2015

/s/ Jack Fitzgerald

Jack Fitzgerald

Counsel for Plaintiff

Dated: March 20, 2015

/s/ Sarah E. Johnston

Sarah E. Johnston

On Behalf of Defendant

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: __________, 2015 ______________________________

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

United States District Judge

1

Reynolds et al. v. Walgreen Co., No. 15-cv-324-JSW

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO MTD

Case4:15-cv-00324-JSW Document19 Filed03/20/15 Page2 of 3

March 23

Case 4:15-cv-00324-JSW Document 20 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Attestation Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 5.1(i)

Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 5.1(i), I, Jack Fitzgerald, hereby attest that I have 

obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from the other signatories to this 

documents.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of 

my knowledge. Executed this 20th day of March, 2015, in San Diego, California.

/s/ Jack Fitzgerald

Jack Fitzgerald

2

Reynolds et al. v. Walgreen Co., No. 15-cv-324-JSW

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO MTD

Case 4:15-cv-00324-JSW Document 20 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 5 Case4:15-cv-00324-JSW Document19 Filed03/20/15 Page3 of 3
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

THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK

FITZGERALD, PC

JACK FITZGERALD (SBN 257370)

jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

TREVOR M. FLYNN (SBN 253362)

trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

TRAN NGUYEN (SBN 301593)

tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

Hillcrest Professional Building

3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202

San Diego, California 92103

Phone: (619) 692-3840

Fax: (619) 362-9555

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 

Putative Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY REYNOLDS and ROBERT 

MASON, on behalf of themselves and

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WALGREEN CO.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-cv-324-JSW

DECLARATION OF JACK 

FITZGERALD IN SUPPORT OF 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER 

EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO 

RESPOND AND CONTINUING 

HEARING ON WALGREEN’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS

[N.D. CAL. CIV. L.R. 6-2]

Reynolds et al. v. Walgreen Co., No. 15-cv-324-JSW

DECLARATION OF JACK FITZGERALD

Case 4:15-cv-00324-JSW Document 20 Filed 03/23/15 Page 4 of 5 Case4:15-cv-00324-JSW Document19-1 Filed03/20/15 Page1 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

I, Jack Fitzgerald, declare:

1. I am a member in good standing of the State Bars of California and New York; 

and of the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Central, and Southern 

Districts of California, the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of New York, and the 

Western District of Wisconsin; and of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit. I make this Declaration pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-2(a), based on my own 

personal knowledge.

2. Plaintiff has requested an enlargement of time in which to respond to Walgreen’s 

motion to dismiss in order to better consider Walgreen’s jurisdictional arguments and explore 

a possible early resolution. Walgreens has stipulated to continuing the hearing date to May 8, 

2015 (because Walgreens’ counsel is unavailable on May 1), and extending plaintiff’s 

response due date by two weeks, to April 8, 2015 (and correspondingly, Walgreens’ deadline 

to reply to April 15, 2015).

3. The parties previously stipulated to an extension of Walgreen’s time to respond 

to the Complaint. (Dkt. No. 9.)

4. The requested modification will push out by two weeks the hearing on 

Walgreen’s motion to dismiss, but should not otherwise affect the case as it is in its beginning 

stages and there has been no scheduling order issue yet.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of 

my knowledge.

Executed this 20th day of March, 2015, in San Diego, California.

/s/ Jack Fitzgerald

Jack Fitzgerald

1

Reynolds et al. v. Walgreen Co., No. 15-cv-324-JSW

DECLARATION OF JACK FITZGERALD

Case 4:15-cv-00324-JSW Document 20 Filed 03/23/15 Page 5 of 5 Case4:15-cv-00324-JSW Document19-1 Filed03/20/15 Page2 of 2