Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04470/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04470-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fair Labor Standards 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

3 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO REMAND AND

MOTION TO DISMISS; [PROPOSED] ORDER – CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04470-RS 

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MICHAEL MACARAEG, on Behalf of 

Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, and 

as Private Attorney General, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ABM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a 

California Corporation; ABM ONSITE 

SERVICES – WEST, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-04470-RS 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO SET 

SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO REMAND, 

MOTION TO DISMISS AND CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

DEADLINES 

ACTION FILED: May 1, 2015 

ASSIGNED TO: Hon. Richard Seeborg 

 

Case 3:15-cv-04470-RS Document 15 Filed 10/19/15 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

4 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO REMAND AND

MOTION TO DISMISS; [PROPOSED] ORDER – CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04470-RS 

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff Michael Macaraeg (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants ABM Security 

Services, Inc. and ABM Onsite Services – West, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a stipulated 

request to extend and modify certain deadlines associated with anticipated motion practice. 

Good cause appearing, the Court sets the following deadlines follows: 

ACTION DEADLINE 

Plaintiff to File Motion to Remand Tuesday, October 29, 2015 

Defendants to File Opposition to Motion to Remand Tuesday, November 19, 2015 

Plaintiff to File Reply in Support of Motion To Remand Thursday, December 3, 2015 

Hearing on Motion to Remand December 17, 2015 

Defendants to File Motion to Dismiss 28 calendar days from date of Court’s 

ruling on Motion to Remand 

Plaintiff to File Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 21 calendar days from date of filing of 

Motion to Dismiss 

Defendants to File Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss 14 calendar days from date of filing of 

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 

Hearing on Motion to Dismiss First Thursday after 14 calendar days 

from date of filing of Reply in Support 

of Motion to Dismiss 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ____________, 2015 ___________________________________ 

 The Honorable Richard Seeborg 

 U.S. District Judge

 

10/19

Case 3:15-cv-04470-RS Document 15 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 2