-1- 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: INADVERTENTLY OMITTED EXHIBIT 7 

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

CLARKSON 

LAW 

FIRM, P.C.

22525 Pacific Coast Highway 

Malibu, CA 90265

CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.

Ryan J. Clarkson (SBN 257074) 

rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com 

Shireen M. Clarkson (SBN 237882) 

sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com 

Katherine A. Bruce (SBN 288694) 

kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com 

Kelsey J. Elling (SBN 337915) 

kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com 

22525 Pacific Coast Highway 

Malibu, CA 90265 

Tel: (213) 788-4050 

Fax: (213) 788-4070 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 

Mark D. Erickson (SBN 104403) 

mark.erickson@haynesboone.com 

600 Anton Blvd., Ste. 700 

Costa Mesa, CA 92626 

Tel: (949) 202-3000 

Fax: (949) 202-3001 

Michelle C. Jacobs (pro hac vice) 

michelle.jacobs@haynesboone.com 

2323 Victory Ave., Ste. 700 

Dallas, TX 75219 

Tel: (214) 651-5000 

Fax: (214) 651-5940 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 Plaintiffs Tara Farrell, Henly Velarde, and Douglas Wells (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant New 

Millennium Concepts, Ltd. (“Defendant”) hereby enter into the following stipulation regarding 

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Relief from Inadvertently Omitted Exhibit 7 in Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Oppositions to Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule 12(b)(3) Motions and to Extend or Continue 

TARA FARRELL, HENLY VELARDE, and 

DOUGLAS WELLS, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NEW MILLENNIUM CONCEPTS, LTD., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 2:21-cv-01691-JAM-JDP 

Case Filed: September 16, 2021 

Assigned to Hon. John A. Mendez, United 

States District Court Judge; and Jeremy D. 

Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: 

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION 

RE: INADVERTENTLY OMITTED 

EXHIBIT 7 IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS TO 

DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(b)(2) 

MOTION AND MOTION TO 

TRANSFER VENUE 

Rule 12(b)(6) MTD-FSC: 1/25/2022 

Rule 12(b)(2) MTD-PJ: 1/25/2022 

28 U.S.C. § 1404 MTTV: 1/25/2022 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 31 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 649
-2- 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: INADVERTENTLY OMITTED EXHIBIT 7 

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

CLARKSON 

LAW 

FIRM, P.C.

22525 Pacific Coast Highway 

Malibu, CA 90265

Related Dates (Dkt. 27) (“Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion”). Granting the relief requested herein would 

fully resolve and moot the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion. 

RECITALS 

1. WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against 

Defendant to assert false advertising and warranty claims on behalf of California and United States 

consumers (Compl., Dkt. 1); 

2. WHEREAS, on November 11, 2021, Defendant filed three motions in response to the 

Complaint, which were originally set for hearing on January 25, 20221—specifically, a Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(2) motion to challenge personal jurisdiction (Dkt. 11) (“Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(2) 

Motion”); a motion to transfer venue2 (Dkt. 12) (“Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue”); and 

a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to challenge the sufficiency of allegations in the complaint to state 

a claim (Dkt. 13) (“Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion”) (collectively, “Defendant’s Motions”); 

3. WHEREAS, based on the January 25, 2022 hearing date, Plaintiffs’ oppositions were 

due on January 11, 2022, and Defendant’s replies were due on January 18, 2022 (L.R. 230(c), 

230(d)); 

4. WHEREAS, on January 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed oppositions to Defendant’s Motions 

(Dkt. 17-20), including a single set of evidence (declarations and exhibits) to support Plaintiffs’ 

oppositions to Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(2) Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 19-1 to 19-

8; Dkt. 20; see also Corr. Opp. MTD-PJ, Dkt. 21 (re-filed 1/12/2022 with corrected case number);3 

1

 The Court recently issued a minute order vacating the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Dkt. 

28. 

2

 In Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion, Plaintiffs referred to Defendant’s pending Motion to Transfer 

Venue as a Rule 12(b)(3) motion. Dkt. 27. Defendant’s motion is actually brought under 28 U.S.C. 

§1404. Dkt. 12. 

3

 Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities in support of their opposition to Defendant’s 

personal jurisdiction motion was filed close to midnight on January 11, 2022. Dkt. 18. Plaintiffs’ 

memorandum of points and authorities in support of their opposition to Defendant’s venue motion, 

including the omnibus set of evidence in support of both oppositions, were filed at around midnight, 

with the notice of electronic filing confirming the transaction at 12:02 a.m., January 12, 2022. Dkt. 

19; see also Opp. MTD-PJ, Dkt. 18, at p. 1, n.1 (incorporating facts and evidence from the 

opposition to transfer venue into the opposition regarding personal jurisdiction to avoid the undue 

burden of unnecessary duplication); see also Corr. Opp MTD-PJ, Dkt. 21 (same). Subsequently, on 

January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel received an email from the Court’s clerk regarding an incorrect 

case number inserted in the opposition on personal jurisdiction grounds and requesting its refiling 

with the corrected case number. Decl. Bruce, Dkt. 27-1, ¶ 3, n.1; compare Opp. MTD-PJ, Dkt. 18 

with Dkt. 21 (correcting case number only). In response, on January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 31 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 650
-3- 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: INADVERTENTLY OMITTED EXHIBIT 7 

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

CLARKSON 

LAW 

FIRM, P.C.

22525 Pacific Coast Highway 

Malibu, CA 90265

5. WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel realized that Exhibit 7 to 

Plaintiffs’ oppositions to Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(2) Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue was 

inadvertently omitted from the January 11, 2022 filing as a result of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s clerical 

error alone, and, as such, Plaintiffs’ counsel immediately initiated communications with 

Defendant’s counsel via telephone and email to confer regarding the error and propose a stipulation 

consistent with the relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion (Bruce Decl., Dkt. 27-1, ¶ 5; Email 

Exch., Dkt. 27-2; Opp. MTD-PJ, Dkt. 18, at p. 6; Corr. Opp. MTD-PJ, Dkt. 21; Elling Decl., Dkt. 

19-7, ¶ 5); 

6. WHEREAS, at around the same time that the parties were conferring on January 18, 

2022, Plaintiffs filed a notice of errata that attaches Exhibit 7 (Dkt. 27); 

7. WHEREAS, due to the late hour on January 18, 2022, Defendant’s counsel was 

unable to immediately stipulate to the requested relief (Bruce Decl., Dkt. 27-1, ¶¶ 4; Email Exch., 

Dkt. 27-2); 

8. WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion, without 

delay, to provide the Court with the earliest opportunity to issue orders granting relief and basing it, 

in part, on heavily disputed arguments regarding the import of Exhibit 7 to establish that irreparable 

harm would result if this Court grants Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(2) Motion without considering 

Exhibit 7 due to its untimely filing (Dkt. 27; id. at ¶¶ 3-8); 

9. WHEREAS, Defendant vigorously disputes the import of Exhibit 7 to Defendant’s 

pending Rule 12(b)(2) Motion, but in any event, contends that it has already addressed the issues 

raised in Exhibit 7 in its recently filed reply (Reply MTD PJ, Dkt. 24, at 1-2); 

10. WHEREAS, because Defendant has already addressed the issues raised by Exhibit 7, 

Defendant and Plaintiffs agree that additional time for briefing or a continuance of the originally 

scheduled hearing are not required as a result of the late-filed exhibit; 

11. WHEREAS, Defendant and Plaintiffs agree that, by this stipulation, it obviates the 

need to engage in contentious arguments regarding the relevance of Exhibit 7 in the context of an 

ex parte motion because the proposed stipulated orders contained herein should resolve Plaintiffs’ 

refiled the same opposition with a single change to correct the case number. Id.

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 31 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 651
-4- 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: INADVERTENTLY OMITTED EXHIBIT 7 

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

CLARKSON 

LAW 

FIRM, P.C.

22525 Pacific Coast Highway 

Malibu, CA 90265

Ex Parte Motion without burdening the Court with the review of additional papers; 

12. WHEREAS, on January 19 and 20, 2022, Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s counsel further 

conferred via email and telephone regarding the relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion and, 

based upon the totality of their efforts and the facts set forth herein, have reached the following 

agreement that resolves and moots Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion without requiring the further 

expenditure of judicial or party resources on this matter; and 

STIPULATION

13. THEREFORE, the parties further stipulate and agree to the following proposed 

orders: 

i. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7, filed with Plaintiffs’ notice of errata on January 18, 2022 

(Dkt. 23), will be considered by the Court as though it were timely filed on 

January 11, 2022, in connection with Plaintiffs’ oppositions to Defendant New 

Millennium Concepts, Ltd.’s Rule 12(b)(2) Motion and Motion to Transfer 

Venue (Dkt. 11-12 (motions), 18-21 (oppositions)); 

ii. The current briefing schedule in connection with Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) 

Motion and Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 11-12) remain unaltered, unless 

further notified by the Court; and 

iii. The relief will avoid any undue prejudice to any party, conserve judicial and 

party resources, and serve the ends of justice. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Date: January 20, 2022 CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 

By: /s/ Katherine A. Bruce 

Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.

Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. 

Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.

Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 31 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 652
-5- 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: INADVERTENTLY OMITTED EXHIBIT 7 

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

CLARKSON 

LAW 

FIRM, P.C.

22525 Pacific Coast Highway 

Malibu, CA 90265

Date: January 20, 2022 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 

By: /s/ Michelle C. Jacobs 

Mark D. Erickson, Esq. 

Michelle C. Jacobs, Esq. 

Attorneys for Defendant 

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: January 20, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez 

 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 31 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 653