Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05304/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05304-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

REVISING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff Sharon Robinson 

ROBERT TODD SULLWOLD (SBN 88139) 

SULLWOLD & HUGHES 

1999 HARRISON STREET, 18TH FLOOR 

OAKLAND, CA 94612 

TELEPHONE: (510) 496-4615 

FACSIMILE: 415-762-5338 

EMAIL: rts@greenstamps.com

Attorneys for Defendants Wells Fargo Advisors 

 and Wells Fargo & Company 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SHARON ROBINSON, an individual 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company; WELLS FARGO 

& COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and 

DOES 1-25 inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. 4:15-CV-05304-HSG 

 

 STIPULATION AND 

 ORDER REVISING 

 BRIEFING SCHEDULE CONSISTENT 

 WITH COURT’S CALENDARING OF 

 NEW HEARING DATE ON 

 DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO & 

 COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

 JUDGMENT OR FOR STAY PENDING 

 ARBITRATION 

 

 Date: June 30, 2016 

 Time: 2:00 PM 

 Courtroom: 15 on 18th Floor 

 Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 

JAMES M. BRADEN (SBN 102397)

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. BRADEN 

44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1210 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 

TELEPHONE: (415) 398-6865 

FACSIMILE: (415) 788-5605

EMAIL: braden@sf-lawyer.com

Case 4:15-cv-05304-HSG Document 27 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 3
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

REVISING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

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

 

(1) On April 28, 2016, Plaintiff Sharon Robinson (“Robinson”) and Defendant Wells 

Fargo & Company (“Wells Fargo”) stipulated to a two-week continuance of the hearing on Wells 

Fargo’s proposed Motion for Summary Judgment Or Motion for Stay Pending Arbitration, so 

that it would occur on June 16, 2016 instead of on June 2, 2016, at 2:00 P.M. The Court, 

however, did not have an opening on the calendar for June 16, and thus on its own motion 

continued the hearing for two more weeks, to June 30, 2016, at 2:00 P.M. 

(2) Robinson and Wells Fargo stipulated at the same time to a briefing schedule based 

upon an assumed June 16 hearing date. In resetting the hearing to June 30, the Court said that 

“the parties may brief the motion on the schedule set forth in the stipulation.” The Court’s 

expression apparently was permissive rather than mandatory. 

(3) But regardless of which, the parties believe that it is permissible and appropriate to 

stipulate to, and ask the Court to agree to, a revised briefing schedule that is keyed to the June 30 

hearing date, and that provides for the Court to have received full briefing by not less than 14 

days before that date, consistent with Local Rule 7. Thus the parties wish to modify their 

briefing schedule in a manner that is convenient for them and that will in no way prejudice the 

Court’s ability to timely receive the full briefing. 

(4) Accordingly, the parties stipulate that Wells Fargo shall file by not later than May 19, 

2016 its Motion for Summary Judgment or its Motion for Stay Pending Arbitration, that 

Robinson shall file by not later than June 9, 2016 her Opposition to such Motion(s), that Wells 

Fargo shall file by not later than June 16, 2016 its Reply in support of such Motion(s), and that 

hearing on the Motion(s) shall take place on June 30, 2016 at 2:00 P.M before Judge Gilliam. 

(5) These new dates are agreed notwithstanding the specific time rule for Opposition 

briefs set forth in Local Rule 7-2. The parties’ purpose is to provide Robinson one additional 

week, above the Local Rule 7-2 requirement of two weeks (14) days, as appropriate in light of 

Case 4:15-cv-05304-HSG Document 27 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 3
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

REVISING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

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 substantially greater than one week continuance that Wells Fargo has obtained to file its 

Motion(s). 

(6) Robinson and Wells Fargo request that the Court confirm this Stipulation by making 

it an Order of the Court, by signature on the next page. 

Dated: April 29, 2016 LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. BRADEN 

 

By:_____/s/ James Braden___________________ 

 James Braden 

Attorney for Plaintiff Sharon Robinson 

Dated: April 29, 2016 SULLWOLD & HUGHES 

 

 By: _____/s/_Robert Todd Sullwold______ 

 Robert Todd Sullwold 

 Attorneys for Defendants Wells Fargo Advisors and 

 Wells Fargo & Company 

ORDER 

 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, 

 The foregoing Stipulation of the parties is hereby made an Order of this Court. 

Dated: May 2, 2016 _______________________________ 

 HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 

 

 

Case 4:15-cv-05304-HSG Document 27 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 3