Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03418/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03418-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNTIL APRIL 18, 2016 - 3:15-cv-03418-EMC 

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 

MAYER BROWN LLP 

DONALD M. FALK (SBN 150256) 

dfalk@mayerbrown.com 

ELSPETH HANSEN (SBN 292193) 

elspeth.hansen@mayerbrown.com 

Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 

3000 El Camino Real 

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 

Telephone: (650) 331-2000 

Facsimile: (650) 331-2060 

ARCHIS A. PARASHARAMI (pro hac vice) 

aparasharami@mayerbrown.com 

KEVIN RANLETT (pro hac vice) 

kranlett@mayerbrown.com

MAYER BROWN LLP 

1999 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006-1101 

Telephone: (202) 263-3000 

Facsimile: (202) 263-3300 

Attorneys for AT&T Mobility LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCUS A. ROBERTS, 

KENNETH A. CHEWEY, 

ASHLEY M. CHEWEY, AND 

JAMES KRENN, on behalf of themselves and 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-03418-EMC

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

UNTIL APRIL 18, 2016 

Honorable Edward M. Chen 

 

Case 3:15-cv-03418-EMC Document 58 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 3
 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNTIL APRIL 18, 2016 - 3:15-cv-03418-EMC 

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 

Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”) and Plaintiffs Marcus A. Roberts, Kenneth A. 

Chewey, and Ashley M. Chewey hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. On February 29, 2016, the Court entered an order compelling arbitration of 

Plaintiffs’ claims and staying the action pending the outcome pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3. Dkt. No. 

50. 

2. On March 21, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave under Civil Local Rule 7-9 

to file a motion for reconsideration of the order compelling arbitration. Dkt. No. 54. 

3. On April 4, 2016, the Court entered an order granting leave and directing AT&T 

to “file a brief in opposition to the motion for reconsideration within one week of the date of this 

order”—i.e., by April 11, 2016. Dkt. No. 55. 

4. The parties stipulate to a one-week extension of AT&T’s deadline to file its 

opposition, through and including April 18, 2016. 

5. As explained in the supporting Declaration of Kevin Ranlett, there is good cause 

for the requested extension. Under the current schedule, AT&T’s opposition brief would be due 

April 11, 2016. But AT&T’s outside counsel at Mayer Brown LLP will be traveling from April 

6-10, 2016, and the AT&T in-house attorney who is responsible for this litigation is taking a 

long-planned vacation starting on April 8, 2016. Thus, the requested extension is necessary in 

order to permit AT&T’s outside counsel adequate time to prepare—and AT&T’s in-house 

counsel to review—the opposition brief. 

6. The proposed one-week extension would cause no harm or prejudice to any party 

and would not have any other effect on the schedule for this case. Indeed, the case currently is 

stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. Dkt. No. 50 at 13 (“[T]he Court stays this action 

pending the resolution of the arbitration.”). 

Case 3:15-cv-03418-EMC Document 58 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 3
 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNTIL APRIL 18, 2016 - 3:15-cv-03418-EMC 

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 Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I, Donald M. Falk, attest under penalty of perjury that 

concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from all signatories. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ___________ ________________________ 

 HON. EDWARD M. CHEN 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: April 4, 2016 MAYER BROWN LLP 

_/s/ Donald M. Falk_____________ 

DONALD M. FALK 

Attorney for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC 

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN& 

BERNSTEIN, LLP 

_/s/ Michael Sobol______________ 

MICHAEL SOBOL 

Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 

_/s/ Donald M. Falk_____________ DONALD M. FALK 

April 5, 2016

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:15-cv-03418-EMC Document 58 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 3