Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05336/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05336-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

Case No. CV 09-5336 CRB -1-

Stipulation To Continue Rule 26(f) Conference

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

ROBERT ZARCO, ESQ. (Fla. State Bar No. 502138)

HIMANSHU M. PATEL, ESQ. (Fla. State Bar No. 0167233)

ZARCO EINHORN SALKOWSKI & BRITO, P.A. (Admitted pro hac vice)

100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 2700

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 374-5418

Facsimile: (305) 374-5428

hpatel@zarcolaw.com

ANGEL GOMEZ (State Bar No. 74476)

ANDREW SOMMER (State Bar No. 192844)

EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. One California Street, 26th

 Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-5427

Telephone: 415.399.6036

Facsimile: 415.398.0955

asommer@ebglaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DEBORAH NORK, LEE ROBERTS and 

BAKER’S BOUQUET,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DESIGNED COOKIES, INC.,

Defendants.

No. CV 09-5336 CRB

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Current Initial Case Management

Conference Date: August 20, 2010

at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8

Proposed New Initial Case Management

Conference Date: September 10, 2010

at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2 of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California, Plaintiff, Baker’s Bouquet (“Baker’s”) and Defendant Designed 

Cookies, Inc. (“DCI”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the

following:

Case 3:09-cv-05336-CRB Document 92 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 6
Case No. CV 09-5336 CRB -2-

Stipulation To Continue Rule 26(f) Conference

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

On June 29, 2010, and pursuant to a Stipulation filed by the parties, the Court entered an

Order Continuing Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines in the abovereferenced matter. See D.E. #86. While the parties had requested that the Case Management

Conference be continued from July 2, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. to August 13, 2010 at 8:30 a.m., the

Court, in fact, continued the Case Management Conference to August 20, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. See

D.E. #86. In addition, the Court required the parties to file their Rule 26(f) Report, complete

initial disclosures or state objection in Rule 26(f) report and file Case Management Statement by 

July 30, 2010. See D.E. #86. 

Simultaneous herewith, and consistent with the Court’s Order dated June 29, 2010, the

sole remaining Plaintiff, Baker’s, and DCI are filing their Joint Case Management Conference

Statement.

1 Baker’s and DCI’s respective principals have reached out to each other to discuss

Baker’s current status as a franchisee of DCI and a potential resolution of their grievances

against each other. In addition, during the period from August 14, 2010 through August 29,

2010, Baker’s counsel, Himanshu M. Patel, Esq., is going to be out of the country on his

honeymoon. 

Based on the foregoing conflict of Baker’s counsel, and in the interests of judicial

economy, to preserve the parties’ resources, and to facilitate continued settlement discussions

between Baker’s and DCI, the Parties respectfully request that the Court continue the Initial

Case Management Conference from August 20, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. to September 10, 2010 at 8:30

a.m. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, BAKER’s BOUQUET, INC., and Defendant, DESIGNED

COOKIES, INC., respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order: (i) granting the

instant Stipulation Continuing Initial Case Management Conference; and (ii) granting such other

 1 On June 24, 2010, Plaintiff Deborah Nork and DCI filed a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order of Dismissal

without Prejudice pursuant to which they resolved their differences. See D.E. #83. On June 28, 2010, the Court

entered an Order of Dismissal without Prejudice. See D.E. #85.

Case 3:09-cv-05336-CRB Document 92 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 6
Case No. CV 09-5336 CRB -3-

Stipulation To Continue Rule 26(f) Conference

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

and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 30, 2010

Dated: July 30, 2010

ZARCO EINHORN SALKOWSKI & BRITO, P.A.

By:__/s/ Himanshu M. Patel_______

HIMANSHU M. PATEL

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LOVE & ASSOCIATES

By:__/s/ Kristen L. Williams ___

KRISTEN L. WILLIAMS

Attorneys for Defendant

ATTESTATION CLAUSE

I attest under penalty of perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been 

obtained from its signatories.

By:____________/s/ Himanshu M. Patel ___

 HIMANSHU M. PATEL

Case 3:09-cv-05336-CRB Document 92 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 6
Case No. CV 09-5336 CRB -4-

Stipulation To Continue Rule 26(f) Conference

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

DECLARATION OF HIMANSHU M. PATEL

I, Himanshu M. Patel, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before this Court and am a Partner

with the law firm of Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito, P.A., attorneys of record for Plaintiffs in 

this action. I make this declaration in support of the instant Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

Continuing Initial Case Management Conference. I have personal knowledge of the matters set

forth herein and could competently testify to them if called upon to do so.

2. On June 29, 2010, and pursuant to a Stipulation filed by the parties, the Court

entered an Order Continuing Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines in the

above-referenced matter. See D.E. #86. While the parties had requested that the Case

Management Conference be continued from July 2, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. to August 13, 2010 at 8:30

a.m., the Court, in fact, continued the Case Management Conference to August 20, 2010 at 8:30

a.m. See D.E. #86. In addition, the Court required the parties to file their Rule 26(f) Report, 

complete initial disclosures or state objection in Rule 26(f) report and file Case Management

Statement by July 30, 2010. See D.E. #86. 

3. Simultaneous herewith, and consistent with the Court’s Order dated June 29, 2010, 

the sole remaining Plaintiff, Baker’s, and DCI are filing their Joint Case Management

Conference Statement. It is my understanding that Baker’s and DCI’s respective principals have

attempted to make contact with one another to discuss Baker’s current status as a franchisee of

DCI, as well as perhaps to discuss a potential resolution of their grievances. 

4. In addition, during the period from August 14, 2010 through August 29, 2010, the

undersigned is going to be out of the country on his honeymoon. 

5. Based on the foregoing conflict, and in the interests of judicial economy, to

preserve the parties’ resources, and to facilitate continued discussions between Baker’s and DCI,

the Parties respectfully request that the Court continue the Initial Case Management Conference

from August 20, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. to September 10, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. 

Case 3:09-cv-05336-CRB Document 92 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 6
Case No. CV 09-5336 CRB -5-

Stipulation To Continue Rule 26(f) Conference

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

6. This is the fifth (5th) stipulation to modify the schedule set by the Order Setting 

Initial Case Management Conference And ADR Deadlines [D.E. #3] and the Clerk’s Notice

dated December 16, 2009 [D.E. #18]. The Parties request the extension not for delay but so that

they may attempt to resolve the grievances between the last remaining Plaintiff and DCI and,

thereby, reduce the expense to all parties.

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

Executed this 30th day of July 2010 in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

By:___/s/ Himanshu M. Patel________________

HIMANSHU M. PATEL

Case 3:09-cv-05336-CRB Document 92 Filed 08/02/10 Page 5 of 6
Case No. CV 09-5336 CRB -6-

Stipulation To Continue Rule 26(f) Conference

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 the parties’ stipulation and Local Rule 6-1(b) and 6-2 and good cause

appearing, it is hereby ordered that the Initial Case Management Conference shall be continued 

from August 20, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. to September 10, 2010 at 8:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August , 2010 _______________________________________________

THE HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

02

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-05336-CRB Document 92 Filed 08/02/10 Page 6 of 6