Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01332/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01332-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

CASE NO. C-06-1332 MJJ 

372972.01 

Michael D. McLachlan (State Bar No. 181705) 

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. MCLACHLAN, APC 

523 West Sixth Street, Suite 215 

Los Angeles, California 90014 

(213) 630-2884; Fax: (213) 630-2886 

mike@mclachlanlaw.com 

Daniel M. O’Leary (State Bar No. 175128) 

LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL M. O’LEARY 

523 West Sixth Street, Suite 215 

Los Angeles, California 90014 

(213) 630-2880; Fax: (213)-630-2886 

dan@danolearylaw.com 

Robert S. Green (State Bar No. 136183) 

Jenelle Welling (State Bar No. 209480) 

Charles D. Marshall (State Bar No. 236444) 

GREEN WELLING LLP 

595 Market Street, Suite 2750 

San Francisco, California 94105 

(415) 477-6700; Fax: (415) 477-6710 

cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAUREL VILLAGE BAKERY, LLC, a 

California Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GLOBAL PAYMENTS DIRECT, INC., a 

New York Corporation; HSBC BANK USA, 

N.A.; MERCURY PAYMENT SYSTEMS, 

LLC, a Colorado Corporation, 

Defendants. 

 

Case No. C-06-1332 MJJ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO STAY REQUIREMENTS 

REGARDING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE 

RESOLUTION 

 

Judge: Martin J. Jenkins 

 Courtroom 11, 19th Floor 

Date Comp. Filed: February 22, 2006 

Trial Date: None set 

Case 3:06-cv-01332-MJJ Document 13 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:06-cv-01332-MJJ Document 18 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 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 

1 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

CASE NO. C-06-1332 MJJ 

372972.01 

WHEREAS, on April 18, 2006, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s suit on the 

ground that venue is not proper before this Court. 

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2006 and thereafter, the parties to the above-entitled action, by 

and through their attorneys, met and conferred about the possibilities for alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR) in this action. 

WHEREAS, all parties agree that because of the potentially dispositive nature of 

Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss, it is premature to engage in further discussions 

regarding ADR pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. 

WHEREAS, the parties stipulate that, should this action not be dismissed, they will meet 

and confer regarding ADR within seven (7) days upon issuance of the Court’s written decision 

on the Motion to Dismiss. 

THEREFORE, the parties request that the Court stay the requirements set by the Local 

Rules regarding ADR until resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, including any requirements to 

file an “ADR Certification” and either a “Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Selecting ADR 

Process” or a “Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference.” 

Dated: May 16, 2006 GREEN & WELLING LLP 

By: /s/___________________

CHARLES MARSHALL 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

LAUREL VILLAGE BAKERY, LLC 

Dated: May 16, 2006 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

By: /s/___________________

RACHEL A. FARBIARZ 

Attorneys for Defendant 

GLOBAL PAYMENTS DIRECT, INC. 

Case 3:06-cv-01332-MJJ Document 13 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:06-cv-01332-MJJ Document 18 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 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 

2 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

CASE NO. C-06-1332 MJJ 

372972.01 

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

Pending resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Local Rules’ requirements 

pertaining to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are stayed, including any requirements to file 

an “ADR Certification” and either a “Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Selecting ADR Process” 

or a “Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference.” 

Should this suit remain before the Court, within seven (7) days of the issuance of the 

Court’s written decision on the Motion to Dismiss, the parties are to meet and confer and comply 

with any applicable Local Rules regarding ADR. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ________________________, 2006

 

Hon. Martin J. Jenkins 

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01332-MJJ Document 13 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 3 of 3

5/18/2006

Case 3:06-cv-01332-MJJ Document 18 Filed 05/18/06 Page 3 of 3