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 DeFAZIO/DIMARO 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 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

Lynn Hubbard III (SBN 69773) 

Scottlynn J Hubbard (SBN 212970)

12 Williamsburg Lane 

Chico, California 95926 

Tel: (530) 895-3252 

Fax: (530) 894-8244 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

James DeFazio, Theresa 

Beetham, Brenda Dimaro, 

DeLane Humphries, Hallie 

Lavick, Michael McNair, Sonya 

Pace, Judy Seay, Nancy 

Russell Stanton, and Cindy 

Wirth 

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 DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH 

AMENDED COMPLAINT, IN VIEW OF 

THE JUNE 13, 2008 ORDER; ORDER 

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 357 Filed 06/24/08 Page 1 of 9
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 DeFAZIO/DIMARO 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 357 Filed 06/24/08 Page 2 of 9
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 DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs James P. DeFazio, et al., (“DeFazio”) 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 DeFazio and the other plaintiffs. 

(Dkt. # 333) 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., defendants’ Answers 

to the Fourth Amended Complaint would have been due on April 22, 

2008. 

3. DeFazio filed a Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended 

Complaint (Dkt. # 337), which was withdrawn and refiled. (Dkt. # 

343) 

4. On April 29, 2008 the parties stipulated, and the Court 

Ordered (Dkt. # 341) that filing Answers to the Fourth Amended 

Complaint prior to the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Leave to 

File a Fifth Amended Complaint may render the said Answers moot. 

5. On June 13, 2008, the Court entered an Order denying 

DeFazio’s Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Complaint, 

without prejudice. (Dkt. # 354 at 3). 

6. On June 18, 2008 counsel for DeFazio represented to 

counsel for defendants that DeFazio intends to file another Motion 

for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Complaint. 

7. The parties have again agreed that filing Answers to the 

Fourth Amended Complaint prior to this Court’s ruling on DeFazio’s 

upcoming Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Complaint may 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 357 Filed 06/24/08 Page 3 of 9
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

-4-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

render the said Answers moot. 

8. DeFazio and defendants have agreed that the filing by 

defendants of Answers to the DeFazio Fourth Amended Complaint may be 

deferred pending this Court’s ruling on DeFazio’s Motion for Leave 

to File a Fifth Amended Complaint. The parties agree that 

defendants’ Answers, whether to the Fourth Amended Complaint or 

Fifth Amended Complaint, shall be due within 10 business days of the 

Court’s Order. 

9. The parties further stipulate that the Fourth Amended 

Complaint will remain in effect—notwithstanding the stipulated 

extension for filing Answers or DeFazio’s pending Motion—for the 

purposes of discovery and law and motion. 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 357 Filed 06/24/08 Page 4 of 9
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

-5-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

DATED: June 20, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

By: /s/ Scottlynn J Hubbard 

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD 

One of the Attorneys for 

Plaintiffs 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

Lynn Hubbard III (SBN 69773) 

Scottlynn J Hubbard (SBN 212970) 

12 Williamsburg Lane 

Chico, California 95926 

Tel: (530) 895-3252 

Fax: (530) 894-8244 

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 KELLEHER, JAMES 

J. MCCORMACK, CHARLES C. 

SCHELLENTRAGER, HOWARD I. SIMON 

and RICHARD T. ZWIRNER 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 357 Filed 06/24/08 Page 5 of 9
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

-6-

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION REGARDING TIMING OF DEFENDANTS’ 

ANSWERS TO THE DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 

SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 

By: /s/ James 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 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 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 357 Filed 06/24/08 Page 6 of 9
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 

DeFAZIO/DIMARO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, 

IN VIEW OF THE JUNE 13, 2008 ORDER

Plaintiffs James P. DeFazio et al. (“DeFazio”) 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 DeFazio and the other plaintiffs. 

(Dkt. # 333) 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., defendants’ Answers 

to the Fourth Amended Complaint would have been due on April 22, 

2008. 

3. DeFazio filed a Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended 

Complaint (Dkt. # 337), which was withdrawn and refiled. (Dkt. # 

343) 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 357 Filed 06/24/08 Page 7 of 9
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-

4. On April 29, 2008 the parties stipulated, and the Court 

Ordered (Dkt. # 341) that filing Answers to the Fourth Amended 

Complaint prior to the Court’s ruling on the Motion for Leave to 

File a Fifth Amended Complaint may render the said Answers moot. 

5. On June 13, 2008, the Court entered an Order denying 

DeFazio’s Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Complaint, 

without prejudice. (Dkt. # 354 at 3). 

6. On June 18, 2008 counsel for DeFazio represented to 

counsel for defendants that DeFazio intends to file another Motion 

for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Complaint. 

7. The parties have again agreed that filing Answers to the 

Fourth Amended Complaint prior to this Court’s ruling on DeFazio’s 

upcoming Motion for Leave to File a Fifth Amended Complaint may 

render the said Answers moot. 

8. DeFazio and defendants have agreed that the filing by 

defendants of Answers to the DeFazio Fourth Amended Complaint may be 

deferred pending this Court’s ruling on DeFazio’s Motion for Leave 

to File a Fifth Amended Complaint. The parties agree that 

defendants’ Answers, whether to the Fourth Amended Complaint or 

Fifth Amended Complaint, shall be due within 10 business days of the 

Court’s Order. 

9. The parties further stipulate that the Fourth Amended 

Complaint will remain in effect—notwithstanding the stipulated 

extension for filing Answers or DeFazio’s pending Motion—for the 

purposes of discovery and law and motion. 

The foregoing stipulation is approved by the Court, and 

defendants’ responsive pleading to DeFazio’s Fourth Amended 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 357 Filed 06/24/08 Page 8 of 9
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-

Complaint or Fifth Amended Complaint (as the case may be) shall be 

filed at the time set forth in the parties’ Stipulation. 

Dated: June 23, 2008 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 357 Filed 06/24/08 Page 9 of 9