Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00964/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00964-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Defendant
Caremark RX LLC
Defendant
Francisco Nieves Reyes
Plaintiff

Document Text:

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE MODIFICATION OF LITIGATION SCHEDULE

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

Gregory N. Karasik (SBN 115834)

Karasik Law Firm

11835 W. Olympic Blvd. Ste. 1275

Los Angeles, CA 90064

Tel (310) 312-6800

Fax (310) 943-2582

greg@karasiklawfirm.com

Sahag Majarian II – State Bar No. 146621

Law Office of Sahag Majarian II

18250 Ventura Boulevard

Tarzana, California 91356

Tel: (818) 609-0807; Fax: (818) 609-0892

sahagii@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FRANCISCO NIEVES REYES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO NIEVES REYES, individually 

and on behalf of other persons similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK RX 

LLC; and DOES 1 through 10.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-CV-00964 MJS

STIPULATION RE MODIFICATION OF 

LITIGATION SCHEDULE and ORDER 

THEREON

Plaintiff Francisco Nieves Reyes (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and CVS 

Caremark Corporation (erroneously sued as Caremark RX LLC) (“Defendants”), by and through their 

respective counsel of record, hereby enter into the following Stipulation re Modification of Litigation 

Schedule. 

STIPULATION

1. On September 12, 2014, the Court issued an order establishing the following schedule 

with respect to Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for class certification:

Filing Deadline March 16, 2015

Case 1:14-cv-00964-MJS Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 3
 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE MODIFICATION OF LITIGATION SCHEDULE

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

Opposition Due April 16, 2015

Reply Due April 30, 2015

Hearing Date June 5, 2015

2. Despite trying to complete class certification related discovery with diligence, the 

parties have encountered unexpected delays. Among other reasons preventing completion of class 

related discovery sooner, Defendants were not able to provide Plaintiff with sampling information until 

around December 23, 2014 and, due to scheduling conflicts, pmk depositions were only recently 

scheduled to be taken on March 23, 2015 (in Los Angeles) and April 8, 2015 (in Boston).

3. In addition to needing more time to complete discovery, the parties have been meeting 

and conferring about the possibility of participating in a private mediation, and wish to have more time

to fully explore that possibility before having to incur further litigation expenses.

4. In light of the above, the parties mutually request that all of the dates with respect to 

Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for class certification be extended by eight weeks, as follows:

Filing Deadline May 11, 2015

Opposition Due June 11, 2015

Reply Due June 25, 2015

Hearing Date July 31, 2015

Dated: February 20, 2015 KARASIK LAW FIRM

By /s/ Gregory N. Karasik

Gregory N. Karasik

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: February 20, 2015 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

By /s/ Jennifer B. Zargarof

Jennifer B. Zargarof

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 1:14-cv-00964-MJS Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 3
 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE MODIFICATION OF LITIGATION SCHEDULE

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

ORDER

Good cause having been shown, the foregoing stipulation in case number 1:14-CV-00964 MJS

is hereby approved. The litigation schedule for Plaintiff’s class certification motion is modified to the 

following:

Filing Deadline May 11, 2015

Opposition Due June 11, 2015

Reply Due June 25, 2015

Hearing Date July 31, 2015

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00964-MJS Document 29 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 3