BAIRD v. BlackROCK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST COMPANY, N.A.

Case No. 17-cv-1892-HSG.

Charles Baird, Plaintiff, v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
Cause: 29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
Nature of Suit: 791 Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Charles Baird, Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow , Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP.

Charles Baird, Plaintiff, represented by Julia Horwitz , Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll, Karen L. Handorf , Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Michelle C. Yau , Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Todd F. Jackson , Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP.

BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle , O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan , O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow , OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards , O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Blackrock, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle , O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan , O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow , OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards , O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle , O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan , O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow , OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards , O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Jason Herman, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle , O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan , O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow , OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards , O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The Administrative Committee of the Retirement Committee, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle , O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan , O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow , OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards , O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The Investment Committee of the Retirement Committee, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle , O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan , O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow , OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards , O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.

Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Charles Baird and Defendants BlackRock, Inc.; BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., The BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee; Jason Herman; The Administrative Committee of the Retirement Committee; and The Investment Committee of the Retirement Committee (collectively, the "Defendants") by and through their respective counsel, stipulate and agree to the following:

1. On June 1, 2017, Defendants filed a Request for Judicial Notice in connection with Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint filed on the same day. 2. Because the Request for Judicial Notice relates to the Motion to Dismiss, the Parties have conferred and agreed that it makes sense to align the remaining briefing on the two motions. Yau Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. The Parties have therefore stipulated and agreed to the following briefing schedule for the Request for Judicial Notice, which coincides with the existing briefing schedule for the Motion to Dismiss: July 14, 2017 Plaintiff's objection to the Request for Judicial Notice due July 28, 2017 Defendants' reply due 3. The parties have not requested any previous enlargement of time with respect to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice. 4. One previous request for time modification has been made during the pendency of this action, setting the Motion to Dismiss briefing schedule, which was entered by the court on April 27, 2017. 5. A declaration from Michelle C. Yau, setting forth the reasons for the Parties' request, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

ATTESTATION

I attest that for all conformed signatures indicated by an "/s/," the signatory has concurred in the filing of this document.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

Plaintiff shall file any objection to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice by July 14, 2017. Defendants shall file any reply by July 28, 2017.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases