United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
William R. Squires III CORR CRONIN LLP Attorneys for
Lincoln Sarko, Gretchen Freeman Cappio Ryan McDevitt, Erika
Keech, KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. Attorneys for Defendant ZF TRW
Automotive Holdings Corp.
Christopher M. Ledford, PERKINS COIE LLP, Lance A.
Etcheverry, Pro hac vice Caroline Van Ness, Pro hac vice
Matthew J. Tako, Pro hac vice SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER
& FLOM LLP, John H. Beisner, Pro hac vice SKADDEN, ARPS,
SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Attorneys for Defendants
Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and Kia Motor America, Inc.
STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND CASE DEADLINES
S. Lasnik United States District Judge.
to LCR 7(d)(1) and LCR 10(g), Plaintiffs Thomas Copley,
Marvin Coyner, and Elizabeth Evans ("Plaintiffs"),
and Defendants ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., Hyundai
Motor America, Inc., and Kia Motor America, Inc.
("Defendants"), by and through counsel, hereby
stipulate and move that the time for Defendants to answer,
move, or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiffs'
Complaint and for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification in accordance with LCR 23(i)(3) shall be
amended as provided herein.
the parties hereby stipulate as follows:
10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint in the
above-captioned matter. Dkt. #1. In civil actions now pending
in other federal district courts ("Related
Actions"),  other plaintiffs have asserted related or
similar claims to those made in this action.
5, 2019, counsel for plaintiffs in two Related Actions filed
a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (the
"Consolidation Motion") with the Judicial Panel On
Multidistrict Litigation ("Panel") seeking to
coordinate the Related Actions for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings in a single jurisdiction, opening MDL No. 2905.
parties agree and stipulate that there is good cause to
extend the time for Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise
plead in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint and for
Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification in
accordance with LCR 23(i)(3) until after the Panel rules on
the Consolidation Motion, because doing so will conserve the
Court's and the parties' resources and avoid
duplicative or inconsistent rulings in this case and the
other Related Actions.
parties further agree and stipulate that subject to this
Court's approval, by and between the Plaintiffs and
Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel or
counsel acting on their behalf, that:
1. The deadlines related to initial disclosures and
submission of the Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan set
by the Court, see ECF No. 23, are continued until
after the Panel rules on the Consolidation Motion. The
parties agree to confer and propose new deadlines, if the
Panel denies the Consolidation Motion;
2. Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise plead
in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint shall be continued
until after the Panel rules on the Consolidation Motion as
(i) In the event that the Panel denies the Consolidation
Motion, or MDL No. 2905 is otherwise terminated, (1) the
Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise plead in
response to Plaintiffs' Complaint shall be extended until
45 days after the Panel's order denying transfer or other
event resulting in termination of the proceedings in MDL No.
2905; (2) Plaintiffs shall have 45 days to respond to any
motion(s) that may be made by Defendants directed to the
Complaint; and (3) Defendants shall have ...