Page 1 - Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to 

Stay

Scott F. Kocher, OSB #015088

scott@forumlawgroup.com

FORUM LAW GROUP LLC

811 SW Naito Parkway, Suite 420

Portland, Oregon 97204

Tel: 503.445.2102

Fax: 503.445.2120

Rafey S. Balabanian* 

rbalabanian@edelson.com

Benjamin H. Richman* 

brichman@edelson.com

Eve-Lynn Rapp* 

erapp@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: 312.589.6370

Fax: 312.589.6378

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LORI WAKEFIELD, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISALUS, INC., a Nevada corporation, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01857-BR

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 

RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STAY
Page 2 - Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to 

Stay

LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certify that counsel for Lori Wakefield (“Wakefield” or “Plaintiff”) and 

Defendant ViSalus, Inc. (“ViSalus” or “Defendant”) conferred prior to the filing of this motion 

and that Defendant does not oppose the relief requested herein. 

MOTION

Pursuant to Local Rule 16-3, Plaintiff Wakefield, by and through her undersigned counsel

and without opposition from Defendant ViSalus, hereby moves the Court to enter an Order 

briefly extending her deadline to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Stay. In support of the instant 

Motion, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed this Action on October 10, 2015. (Dkt. 1.)

2. After receiving an extension of time to file its Answer (Dkt. 15), on 

December 29, 2015, Defendant filed a motion requesting to stay the litigation pending the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 135 S.Ct. 2311 (2015) and Spokeo, 

Inc. v. Robins, 135 S.Ct. 1892 (2015) (the “Motion”). (Dkt. 20.)

3. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(e)(1), Plaintiff’s deadline to oppose 

Defendant’s Motion is January 12, 2016 and Defendant’s reply in support is due on January 26, 

2016.

4. Although Plaintiff’s counsel is diligently working to prepare its opposition 

to Defendant’s Motion by the January 12th deadline, Plaintiff’s counsel believes they will need 

an additional seven (7) days to file Plaintiff’s response. 

5. Good cause exists for granting the requested extension to account for the 

fact that Defendant’s Motion was filed during the holiday season and because Plaintiff’s counsel 

has various other professional obligations and briefs due in other matters in the upcoming week. 
Page 3 - Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to 

Stay

6. Plaintiff’s counsel conferred with counsel for Defendant and is authorized 

to state that Defendant has no opposition to the requested extension of the current briefing 

schedule, such that Plaintiff’s response is due no later than January 19, 2016 and Defendant’s 

reply is due no later than February 2, 2016.

7. Finally, the relief requested herein is not sought for any improper purpose

and the extension will not affect any other existing deadlines in this Action. 

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lori Wakefield, without opposition from Defendant

respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order (i) granting the instant motion, (ii) extending 

the deadline to file her opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay from January 12, 2016 to 

January 19, 2016, and likewise extending Defendant’s deadline to file its reply in support of its 

Motion from January 26, 2016 to February 2, 015; and (iii) awarding such other and further relief 

as the Court deems reasonable and just. 

DATED this 8th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Eve-Lynn J. Rapp

Rafey S. Balabanian* 

rbalabanian@edelson.com

Benjamin H. Richman* 

brichman@edelson.com

Eve-Lynn Rapp* 

erapp@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: 312.589.6370

Fax: 312.589.6378

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice 
Page 4 - Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to 

Stay

Scott F. Kocher, OSB #015088

scott@forumlawgroup.com

FORUM LAW GROUP LLC

811 SW Naito Parkway, Suite 420

Portland, Oregon 97204

Tel: 503.445.2102

Fax: 503.445.2120e

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Page 5 - Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to 

Stay

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Extend 

Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion to Stay:

Joshua M. Sasaki, P.C.

Josh.sasaki@millernash.com

Jonathan H. Singer

Jonathan.singer@millernash.com

Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP

3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower

111 S.W. Fifth Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97204

Tel: 503.224.5858

Fax: 503.224.0155

by the following indicated method or methods on the date set forth below:

ý CM/ECF system transmission.

 ̈ E-mail. As required by Local Rule 5.2, any interrogatories, requests for 

production, or requests for admission were e-mailed in Word or WordPerfect 

format, not in PDF, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.

 ̈ Facsimile communication device.

 ̈ First-class mail, postage prepaid.

 ̈ Hand-delivery.

 ̈ Overnight courier, delivery prepaid.

DATED this 8th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Eve-Lynn J. Rapp