Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05553/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05553-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME 

TO ANSWER OR RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV-09 5553 (CRB)

MARGARET A. KEANE (SBN 255378) 

mkeane@dl.com 

SEBASTIAN L. MILLER (SBN 265793) 

smiller@dl.com 

DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 

1950 University Avenue, Suite 500 

East Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Telephone: (650) 845-7000 

Facsimile: (650) 845-7333 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Accretive, LLC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

KENYA BODDIE AND RAMONDA CARLOS, 

individually and on behalf of others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

AXIANT, LLC; ACCRETIVE, LLC; MANN 

BRACKEN, LLP, and DOES 1 through 25, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO.: CV-09-5553 (CRB) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER EXTENDING THE TIME FOR 

ACCRETIVE, LLC TO ANSWER OR 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

In consideration of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4) and pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 6(b), the parties hereby stipulate to an extension of time for Defendant Accretive, 

LLC (“Accretive”) to respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) to and including 

Monday, June 28, 2010: 

RECITALS 

1. On March 25, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their SAC alleging violations of the Worker 

Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act”). 

2. On April 12, 2010, Accretive filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ SAC. 

3. On June 4, 2010, the Court denied Accretive’s motion to dismiss the SAC. 

Case 3:09-cv-05553-CRB Document 54 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 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 2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME 

TO ANSWER OR RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. CV-09 5553 (CRB)

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(a), Accretive’s Answer to 

Plaintiffs’ SAC is due on June 18, 2010. 

5. Plaintiffs’ Counsel does not oppose the extension of time for Accretive to file its 

Answer to Plaintiffs’ SAC. 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, 

that Accretive shall have an extension of ten days, to and including Monday, June 28, 2010, to 

respond or answer Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. 

Dated: June 17, 2010 DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 

By: /s/ Sebastian L. Miller Margaret A. Keane (SBN 255378) 

 mkeane@dl.com 

 Sebastian L. Miller (SBN 265793) 

 smiller@dl.com 

 1950 University Avenue, Suite 500 

 East Palo Alto, CA 94303 

 Tel: (650) 845-7000 

 Fax: (650) 845-7333 

Attorneys for Defendant Accretive, LLC 

Dated: June 17, 2010 HERRON & HERRON 

By: /s/ Laura Herron Weber J. Wynne Herron (SBN 71192) 

 Laura Herron Weber (SBN 226934) 

 laura@herron-herron.com 

 18360 Sonoma Highway 

 Sonoma, CA 95476 

 Tel: (707) 933-4430 

 Fax: (707) 933-4431 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kenya Boddie and Ramonda 

Carlos 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:______________, 2010 

 HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER 

June 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-05553-CRB Document 54 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2