Axelrod et al v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.

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- 	Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW-RMI
SMRH:4903-5918-3556.1 	ORDER
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
P. CRAIG CARDON, Cal. Bar No. 168646
ccardon@sheppard.com
BENJAMIN O. AIGBOBOH, Cal. Bar No. 268531
baigboboh@sheppard.com
CHLOE G. CHUNG, Cal. Bar No. 341398
cchung@sheppard.com
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, California 90067-6055
Telephone: 	310.228.3700
Facsimile: 	310.228.3701
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
ABBY H. MEYER, Cal. Bar No. 294947
ameyer@sheppard.com
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993
Telephone: 	714.513.5100
Facsimile: 	714.513.5130
Attorneys for Defendant
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT BURK,
individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW-RMI
[Assigned to the Hon. Jeffrey S. White]
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO (1)
EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR
OBJECTIONS SET BY FRCP 72; & (2)
CONFIRM OBJECTIONS ARE TO BE
FILED PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 72-3
Complaint Filed: 	August 31, 2021
FAC Filed: 	January 25, 2022
Trial Date: 	None Set
Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 451 Filed 08/05/26 Page 1 of 2

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- 	Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW-RMI
SMRH:4903-5918-3556.1 	ORDER
ORDER
This matter having come before this Court upon Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc.’s
(“Defendant” or “Lenovo”) Administrative Motion to (1) Extend the Deadline for Objections Set By
FRCP 72; and (2) Confirm Objections Are To Be Filed Pursuant to Civil L.R. 72-3. The Court has
considered Lenovo’s motion, Plaintiffs’ opposition, relevant legal authority, and the record in this
case. The Court GRANTS Lenovo’s motion.
Judge Illman has only ruled on one portion of Plaintiff’s motion. Although Plaintiffs did not
include a request for specific sanctions, they moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(e)(2), which permits the Court to dismiss the action or enter a default judgment. 28
U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A) “lists those motions which may not be determined by a magistrate,” and
that list includes a motion to involuntarily dismiss a case. In addition, Magistrate Judge Illman cited
Local Rule 72-3 in the portion of his Report setting deadline for objections. Accordingly, the Court
concludes that the portion of the Report that is ripe for review should be treated as dispositive and
governed by Local Rule 72-3.
The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the deadline to object to Magistrate Judge Illman’s
Report is extended to September 2, 2026, and the page limits will be governed by this Court’s
standing orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2026
HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge
Case 4:21-cv-06770-JSW Document 451 Filed 08/05/26 Page 2 of 2