Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02568/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02568-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Campbell Soup Company
Defendant
Plum Inc.
Defendant
Plum Organics
Defendant
Kathryn Workman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

STIPULATION SETTING RESPONSE DATE TO COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 3:15-CV-02568-WHA

717034548.1

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

MAYER BROWN LLP

DALE J. GIALI (SBN 150382)

dgiali@mayerbrown.com

KERI E. BORDERS (SBN 194015)

kborders@mayerbrown.com

350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503

Telephone: (213) 229-9500

Facsimile: (213) 625-0248

Attorneys for Defendants

Plum, PBC d/b/a Plum Organics (erroneously sued

as Plum Inc.) and Campbell Soup Company

[Additional Party on Signature Page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KATHRYN WORKMAN, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

PLUM INC., D/B/A PLUM ORGANICS, and

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-02568-WHA

STIPULATION SETTING

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE DATE TO

THE COMPLAINT

Complaint Filed: June 9, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 26 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 4
1

STIPULATION SETTING RESPONSE DATE TO COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 3:15-CV-02568-JCS

717034548.1

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

Plaintiff Kathryn Workman (“Plaintiff”) and defendants Plum, PBC d/b/a Plum Organics

(erroneously sued as Plum Inc.) and Campbell Soup Company (“Defendants”) (collectively, the

“Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record and pursuant to Local Rule 6-2,

enter into the following stipulation extending the time in which Defendants must respond to the

complaint and setting a schedule on a motion to dismiss:

WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015, plaintiff filed the Complaint in the above-captioned action;

WHEREAS, on June 11, 2015, the Complaint was served on defendants (Dkt. Nos. 12,

13);

WHEREAS, based on the June 11, 2015 service, defendants’ response to the Complaint

was due on July 2, 2015;

WHEREAS, shortly after service of the Complaint, and based on the unique record

presented, the Parties began discussions about the potential for an early resolution of this action;

WHEREAS, on July 1, 2015, prior to the expiration of defendants’ time to respond to the

Complaint, the Parties submitted a stipulation for a limited ninety (90) day stay of this action

(Dkt. No 14) to commence discussions regarding an early resolution of this action;

WHEREAS, on July 23, 2015, and following assignment of the case to the Honorable

William H. Alsup, the Parties re-submitted their stipulation for a limited ninety (90) day stay of

this action to this Court (Dkt. No. 21);

WHEREAS, on July 24, 2015, the Court denied the stipulation for a limited ninety (90)

days stay of this action (Dkt. No. 22);

WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to set August 27, 2015, twenty-one (21) days from the

date of the filing of this stipulation, as the deadline for defendants to respond to the Complaint;

WHEREAS, the parties would like to use this opportunity also to set forth a briefing

schedule for Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss that allows the parties sufficient time;

WHEREAS, the Parties have not previously sought an extension to the time to respond to

the Complaint.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between

the Parties through their respective counsel, subject to the approval form the court, that:

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 26 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 4
-2-

STIPULATION SETTING RESPONSE DATE TO COMPLAINT; CASE NO. CV 3:15-CV-02568-WHA

717034548.1

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

1. Defendants shall respond to the complaint by August 27, 2015.

2. Plaintiff shall file their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss by September

25, 2015.

3. Defendants’ reply shall be filed by October 8, 2015.

4. The motion shall be noticed for an October 15, 2015 hearing date, or on such

other date and time that is convenient for the Court and its calendar.

DATED: August 5, 2015 MAYER BROWN LLP

Dale J. Giali

Keri E. Borders

By: /s/ Dale J. Giali

Dale J. Giali

Attorneys for Defendants

Plum, PBC d/b/a Plum Organics (erroneously

sued as Plum Inc.) and Campbell Soup

Company

DATED: August 5, 2015 DENLEA & CARTON LLP

Jeffrey I. Carton

Robert J. Berg

CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC

Robyn C. Crowther

Lennette W. Lee

Cameron J. Johnson

By: /s/ Robyn C. Crowther

Robyn C. Crowther

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kathryn Workman

ATTESTATION

I, Dale J. Giali, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local. Rule 5.1(i)(3), that

concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory.

By: /s/ Dale J. Giali

October 29

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 26 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 4
-3-

STIPULATION SETTING RESPONSE DATE TO COMPLAINT; CASE NO. CV 3:15-CV-02568-WHA

717034548.1

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall respond to the complaint by August 27, 2015.

2. Plaintiff shall file their opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss by September

25, 2015.

3. Defendants’ reply shall be filed by October 8, 2015.

4. The motion shall be noticed for an October 15, 2015 hearing date, or on such

other date and time that is convenient for the Court and its calendar.

DATED: _________________ _______________________________

HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ALSUP

United States District Judge

August 11, 2015. October 29

Case 3:15-cv-02568-WHA Document 26 Filed 08/11/15 Page 4 of 4