Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05779/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05779-0/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION REGARDING CERTAIN DEADLINES 

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

Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (SBN 119854) 

kiesel@kbla.com 

KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP 

8648 Wilshire Boulevard 

Beverly Hills, CA 90211 

Telephone: (310) 854-4444 

Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 

HORWITZ, HORWITZ & 

PARADIS, Attorneys at Law 

Paul O. Paradis, Esq. 

Gina M. Tufaro, Esq. 

Mark A. Butler, Esq. 

570 7th Avenue, 20th Floor 

New York, NY 10018 

Telephone: 212/986.4500 

Facsimile: 212/986-4501 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID GOLDBLATT, 

individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HEWLETT-PACKARD 

COMPANY, 

A Delaware Corporation. 

 Defendant.

 

CASE NO.: CV 11-05779-LHK 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING DEADLINE TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

[MODIFICATIONS BY THE 

COURT ARE UNDERLINED] 

Case 5:11-cv-05779-LHK Document 8 Filed 01/02/12 Page 1 of 4
STIPULATION REGARDING CERTAIN DEADLINES 

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

WHEREAS, Plaintiff David Goldblatt (“Plaintiff”) filed a class action 

complaint (the “Complaint”) against Hewlett-Packard Company (“Defendant”) on 

December 1, 2011 in which Plaintiff asserted claims regarding the software (the 

“Software”) installed on certain printers manufactured by Defendant (the 

“Printers”); 

WHEREAS, Defendant’s answer or motion to dismiss the Complaint is 

currently due on December 29, 2011; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has indicated to Defendant that Plaintiff intends to 

serve upon Defendant, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1782(a) (“Section 

1782(a)”), a letter (the “CLRA Letter”) requesting that Defendant satisfy Plaintiff 

and the Class’ demands regarding the Software and the Printers (the “Demands”); 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1782(a), Defendant is afforded 30 days to 

respond to the CLRA Letter; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has further indicated to Defendant that, in the event 

that Defendant does not satisfy the Demands, Plaintiff presently intends to file an 

amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) to assert, among other things, a 

claim for monetary damages under California Civil Code § 1770; 

WHEREAS, in order to streamline the process for Defendant to respond to 

the CLRA Letter, the filing of a possible Amended Complaint in the event that 

Defendant does not satisfy the Demands, and Defendant’s response thereto, the 

Parties have met and conferred regarding a proposed schedule; 

WHEREAS, neither party has sought any previous time modifications; 

WHEREAS, the stipulated schedule sought herein will not affect the 

schedule for the parties’ Case Management Conference, which has been set by the 

Court. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED 

THAT: 

1. Defendant need not answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. 

Case 5:11-cv-05779-LHK Document 8 Filed 01/02/12 Page 2 of 4
STIPULATION REGARDING CERTAIN DEADLINES 

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. Plaintiff will serve the CLRA Letter upon Defendant by no later than 

December 23, 2011. 

3. Defendant shall inform Plaintiff as to whether Defendant will meet the 

Demands set forth in the CLRA Letter by no later than January 23, 2011. 

4. In the event that Defendant does not agree to meet the Demands set 

forth in the CLRA Letter, Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint by no later 

than February 3, 2012. 

5. Defendant’s answer or motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint 

shall be filed by no later than March 2, 2012. 

6. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss shall be filed 

by no later than March 30, 2012. 

7. Defendant’s reply in further support of its motion to dismiss shall be 

filed by no later than April 13, 2012. 

8. A hearing on any motion to dismiss shall be set for Thursday, May 3, 

2012 at 1:30 p.m. Should the Defendant file an answer instead of a motion to 

dismiss on March 2, 2012, the May 3 hearing date shall be vacated. 

Dated: December 23, 2011 KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP

By: /s/ Paul R. Kiesel 

Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (SBN 119854) 

kiesel@kbla.com 

8648 Wilshire Boulevard 

Beverly Hills, CA 90211 

Telephone: (310) 854-4444 

Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 

HORWITZ, HORWITZ & 

PARADIS, Attorneys at Law 

Paul O. Paradis, Esq. 

Gina M. Tufaro, Esq. 

Mark A. Butler, Esq. 

Case 5:11-cv-05779-LHK Document 8 Filed 01/02/12 Page 3 of 4
STIPULATION REGARDING CERTAIN DEADLINES 

4

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

570 7th Avenue, 20th Floor 

New York, NY 10018 

Telephone: (212) 986.4500 

Facsimile: (212) 986-4501 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

Dated: December 23, 2011 

By: /s/ Thomas M. Peterson 

Thomas M. Peterson, State Bar No. 96011 

tmpeterson@morganlewis.com 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 

Telephone: (415) 442-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 

OF COUNSEL: 

J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. (pro hac vice application forthcoming) 

jgcooney@morganlewis.com

Kristofor T. Henning (pro hac vice application forthcoming) 

khenning@morganlewis.com

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 

1701 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 963-5000 

Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Hewlett-Packard Co. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: January 2, 2012 _________________________ 

 HON. LUCY H. KOH 

 U.S.D.J. 

Case 5:11-cv-05779-LHK Document 8 Filed 01/02/12 Page 4 of 4