Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02693/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02693-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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

R. Craig Clark (SBN 129219)

James M. Treglio (SBN 228077) 

CLARK & TREGLIO

205 West Date Street

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: (619) 239-1321 

Facsimile: (888) 273-4554 

David Markham (SBN 071814) 

THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM

750 B Street, Suite 1950 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: (619) 399-3995 

Walter Haines (SBN 071075) 

UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP

5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 

Huntington Beach, CA 92649 

Telephone: (877) 696-8378 

Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RONIE RICHIE, an individual, on behalf of 

herself, and those similarly situated and on 

behalf of the general public,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, a 

California Corporation, 

Defendants.

Case No.: CV 13 2693 EMC

Assigned to Judge Edward M. Chen

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing Date: September 24, 2015

Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m.

Courtroom: 5

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen 

Plaintiff Ronnie Richie and Defendant Blue Shield of California (collectively “the 

Parties”) hereby stipulate to extend the time for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment: 

Case 3:13-cv-02693-EMC Document 55 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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

WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on August 13, 

2013, thereby making Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Motion due on August 27, 2015 and 

Defendant’s reply to Plaintiff’s opposition due on September 3, 2015; 

WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, the Parties engaged in a mediation before well 

respected mediator David Rotman, Esq., of Gregorio, Haldeman, & Rotman; 

WHEREAS, the mediation ended with a mediators proposal, with a response being due 

on August 26, 2015; 

WHEREAS, to allow the Parties time to communicate with their clients and to consider 

the mediator’s proposal, the Parties have agreed to extend the due date for Plaintiff’s opposition 

to Defendant’s Motion from August 27, 2015 to September 15, 2015. 

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AND STIPULATE THAT:

1. The hearing date for Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is

continued to October 15, 2015;

2. The deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendant’s Motion is

September 15, 2015; and

3. The deadline for Defendant to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition is September

24, 2015.

Dated: August _____, 2015 CLARK & TREGLIO

By:________________________ 

R. Craig Clark

James M. Treglio

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

Dated: August _____, 2015 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP

By:_________________________ 

Sharon B. Bauman 

Christopher A. Rheinheimer 

Sunny Hwang

Attorneys for Defendant 

24

24

/s/ James M. Treglio

/s/ Sharon B. Bauman

Case 3:13-cv-02693-EMC Document 55 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO PARTIES STIPULATION AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The hearing date for Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is

continued to October 15, 2015;

2. The deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendant’s Motion is

September 15, 2015; and

3. The deadline for Defendant to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition is September

24, 2015.

Dated: ______________________________ 

__________________________________

THE HON. EDWARD M. CHEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8/25/15

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:13-cv-02693-EMC Document 55 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 3