Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01358/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01358-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1145 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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 REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE ELLIS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &

 BIRNEY LLP 

WILLIAM A. GOULD (SBN 035446) 

DANIEL L. BAXTER (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Tel: (916) 441-2430 

Fax: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for Defendants, THE FIRM OF 

JOHN DICKINSON SCHNEIDER, INC., 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED, SAMUEL 

P. BRILLIANT, RICHARD I. FREMGEN, 

DONALD K. GRONEBERG, CHARLES H. 

GUNDERSON, ALAN F. HERBERT, 

JAMES A. KARLOVSKY, LORI 

KELLEHER, JAMES J. MCCORMACK, 

CHARLES C. SCHELLENTRAGER, 

HOWARD I. SIMON, LORETTA L. 

STEMPINSKI, MICHAEL C. WINN and 

RICHARD T. ZWIRNER

PORTER │SCOTT P.C. 

A Professional Corporation 

Russell G. Porter (SBN 041020) 

Martin N. Jensen (SBN 232231) 

350 University Avenue, Suite 200 

Sacramento, California 95825 

Tel: (916) 929-1481 

Fax: (916) 927-3706 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, KATHLEEN 

ELLIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES P. DeFAZIO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER, INC. et. al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: CIV.S-04-1358 WBS GGH 

[Consolidated Master Case Number] 

STIPULATION REGARDING TIMING 

OF DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS TO 

THE ELLIS FOURTH 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Judge William B. Shubb 

Complaint 

Filed: July 15, 2004 

KATHLEEN ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED et al., 

Defendants. 

Complaint 

Filed: March 22, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 342 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 7
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 REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE ELLIS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

BRENDA DIMARO and 

HOLLIE LAVICK, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants. 

Complaint 

Filed: August 25, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 342 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 7
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE ELLIS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Kathleen Ellis (“Ellis”) and defendants, by their respective attorneys, 

hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 

1. On April 8, 2008, the Court entered an Order granting in part and 

denying in part motions to strike and dismiss directed to the Fourth Amended 

Complaints of Ellis and the other plaintiffs. The April 8, 2008 Order permitted, but 

did not require, plaintiffs to file Fifth Amended Complaints within 30 days of the 

date of that Order (by May 8, 2008). 

2. Under Rule 12(a)(4)(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., if Ellis elects to stand on her 

Fourth Amended Complaint, defendants’ Answers to that Fourth Amended 

Complaint would be due on April 22, 2008. 

3. However, if Ellis elects to file a Fifth Amended Complaint (as permitted 

by the April 8, 2008 Order), defendants would not be required to answer the Fifth 

Amended Complaint until within 10 business days after the filing of that pleading. 

4. Ellis has not yet decided whether or not to file a Fifth Amended 

Complaint. 

5. Ellis and defendants have agreed that the filing by defendants of 

Answers to the Ellis Fourth Amended Complaint may be deferred pending Ellis’s 

decision regarding whether she will file a Fifth Amended Complaint. Ellis will notify 

defendants of her intention either to stand on her Fourth Amended Complaint or 

alternatively, to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. If Ellis notifies defendants that she 

will stand on her Fourth Amended Complaint, then defendants will file answers to 

the Fourth Amended Complaint within seven days of the receipt of such notice. In 

the event that Ellis elects to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, defendants will 

(pursuant to Rule 15(a)(3) and 16(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.) answer or otherwise plead to the 

Fifth Amended Complaint within 10 business days of the filing of the Fifth Amended 

Complaint. 

// 

// 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 342 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 7
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- ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE ELLIS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

DATED: April 22, 2008 PORTER │SCOTT 

 A Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Martin N. Jensen 

MARTIN N. JENSEN 

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff 

KATHLEEN ELLIS 

PORTER │SCOTT P.C. 

A Professional Corporation 

Russell G. Porter (SBN 041020) 

Martin N. Jensen (SBN 232231) 

350 University Avenue, Suite 200 

Sacramento, California 95825 

Tel: (916) 929-1481 

Fax: (916) 927-3706 

SCHUYLER ROCHE, P.C. 

By: /s/ L. Andrew Brehm 

L. ANDREW BREHM 

Attorneys for Defendants 

THE FIRM OF JOHN DICKINSON 

SCHNEIDER, INC., HOLLISTER 

INCORPORATED and ALAN F. HERBERT 

SCHUYLER ROCHE, P.C. 

MICHAEL B. ROCHE (admitted pro hac vice) 

L. ANDREW BREHM (admitted pro hac vice) 

Suite 3800, One Prudential Plaza 

130 East Randolph Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Tel: (312) 565-2400 

Fax: (312) 565-8300 

 ADDUCCI, DORF, LEHNER, MITCHELL 

 & BLANKENSHIP, P.C. 

By: /s/ James D. Adducci 

JAMES D. ADDUCCI 

Attorneys for Defendants, 

SAMUEL P. BRILLIANT, DONALD K. 

GRONEBERG, CHARLES H. 

GUNDERSON, ALAN F. HERBERT, 

JAMES A. KARLOVSKY, LORI 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 342 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 7
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 

-3- ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE ELLIS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

KELLEHER, JAMES J. MCCORMACK, 

CHARLES C. SCHELLENTRAGER, 

HOWARD I. SIMON and RICHARD T. 

ZWIRNER 

 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

 By: /s/ James W. Ducayet 

 JAMES W. DUCAYET 

 Attorneys for Defendants, 

MICHAEL C. WINN and LORETTA L. 

STEMPINSKI 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

WILLIAM F. CONLON (admitted pro hac vice) 

JAMES W. DUCAYET (admitted pro hac vice) 

MIKE BARTOLIC (admitted pro hac vice) 

One South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Tel: (312) 853-7000 

Fax: (312) 853-7036 

Co-counsel for Plaintiff Kathleen Ellis 

WILCOXEN, CALLAHAN, MONTGOMERY & 

 DEACON 

DANIEL E. WILCOXEN 

2114 K Street 

Sacramento, California 95816 

Co-counsel for all Defendants: 

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP WILLIAM A. GOULD (SBN 

035446) 

DANIEL L. BAXTER (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 

Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for Defendants THE FIRM OF JOHN DICKINSON SCHNEIDER, INC., 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED, SAMUEL P. BRILLIANT, RICHARD I. FREMGEN, 

DONALD K. GRONEBERG, CHARLES H. GUNDERSON, ALAN F. HERBERT, JAMES 

A. KARLOVSKY, LORI J. KELLEHER, JAMES J. MCCORMACK, CHARLES C. 

SCHELLENTRAGER, HOWARD I. SIMON, LORETTA L. STEMPINSKI, MICHAEL C. 

WINN and RICHARD T. ZWIRNER 

// 

// 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 342 Filed 04/29/08 Page 5 of 7
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- ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

----oo0oo---- 

JAMES P. DEFAZIO, et al., 

 

 Plaintiffs, NOS. CIV. S-04-1358 WBS GGH 

 S-05-0559 WBS GGH 

 v. S-05-1726 WBS GGH 

 CONSOLIDATED 

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

ORDER RE: STIPULATION REGARDING ANSWERS TO 

THE ELLIS FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Kathleen Ellis (“Ellis”) and defendants, in accordance with the parties’ 

stipulation, are hereby Ordered as follows: 

 1. On April 8, 2008, the Court entered an Order granting in part and 

denying in part motions to strike and dismiss directed to the Fourth Amended 

Complaints of Ellis and the other plaintiffs. The April 8, 2008 Order permitted, but 

did not require, plaintiffs to file Fifth Amended Complaints within 30 days of the 

date of that Order (by May 8, 2008). 

 2. Under Rule 12(a)(4)(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., if Ellis elects to stand on her 

Fourth Amended Complaint, defendants’ Answers to that Fourth Amended 

Complaint would be due on April 22, 2008. 

 3. However, if Ellis elects to file a Fifth Amended Complaint (as permitted 

by the April 8, 2008 Order), defendants would not be required to answer the Fifth 

Amended Complaint until within 10 business days after the filing of that pleading. 

 4. Ellis has not yet decided whether or not to file a Fifth Amended 

Complaint. 

 5. Ellis and defendants have agreed that the filing by defendants of 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 342 Filed 04/29/08 Page 6 of 7
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- ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Answers to the Ellis Fourth Amended Complaint may be deferred pending Ellis’s 

decision regarding whether she will file a Fifth Amended Complaint. Ellis will notify 

defendants of her intention either to stand on her Fourth Amended Complaint or 

alternatively, to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. If Ellis notifies defendants that she 

will stand on her Fourth Amended Complaint, then defendants will file answers to 

the Fourth Amended Complaint within seven days of the receipt of such notice. In 

the event that Ellis elects to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, defendants will 

(pursuant to Rule 15(a)(3) and 16(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.) answer or otherwise plead to the 

Fifth Amended Complaint within 10 business days of the filing of the Fifth Amended 

Complaint. 

 The foregoing stipulation is approved by the Court, and defendants’ 

responsive pleading to Ellis’s Fourth Amended Complaint or Fifth Amended 

Complaint (as the case may be) shall be filed at the time set forth in the parties’ 

Stipulation. 

Dated: April 29, 2008 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 342 Filed 04/29/08 Page 7 of 7