Brenda Young and Sabrina Skacan, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Renewal by Andersen LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, River City Window & Door, Inc., a California corporation, and DOES 1-10

E.D. California

Brenda Young and Sabrina Skacan, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Renewal by Andersen LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, River City Window & Door, Inc., a California corporation, and DOES 1-10

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 15, 2026·No. 2:24-cv-01759·Unknown

Opinion

WARREN TERZIAN LLP 5 Thomas D. Warren (CA 160921) tom.warren@warrenterzian.com 3 || Dan Terzian (CA 283835) dan.terzian@warrenterzian.com 4) 222 N Pacific Coast Hwy, Ste 2000 5 || El Segundo, CA 90245-5614 Telephone: (213) 410-2620 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 and Proposed Class Counsel 8 9 10 1] 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 || BRENDA YOUNG and SABRINA SKACAN, on | Case No. 2:24-cv-01759-DJC-CKD behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, 16 || and the general public, Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta 17 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO GRANT 18 Vs PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST 19 || RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN LLC, a Minnesota | AMENDED COMPLAINT limited liability company, RIVER CITY 20 | WINDOW & DOOR, INC., a California Hearing Date: August 13, 2026 21 || corporation, and DOES 1-10, Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 7 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY

ee II III III IIS IONE INO IDE IEEE □□□ (UIE IES OE

1 Plaintiffs Brenda Young and Sabrina Skacan and Defendants Renewal by Andersen and River 2 || City Window & Door stipulate that Plaintiffs may file the attached surreply to Defendants’ motion to 3 || dismiss the first amended complaint. They request a Court order granting this stipulation. 4 The reasons for this stipulation are: 5 1. The defendants’ reply brief on the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint raises a 6 || new argument. The defendants’ motion to dismiss argued that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 7 over all of the plaintiffs’ claims, including their individual claims for damages and restitution. But the 8 || defendants’ reply states that they withdraw their request to dismiss plaintiffs’ individual claims for 9 || damages and restitution over which they assert the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, 10 || even if the class and public injunctive relief claims lack subject matter jurisdiction. 11 2. Following the reply, the plaintiffs advised that they intend to move ex parte to file the 12 || attached two-page surreply to address the new argument. See McGechie v. Atomos Ltd., No. 2:22-cv- 13 01812-DJC-DB, 2023 WL 2918681, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2023) (Calabretta, J.) (“Good cause to 14 || permit a party to file a sur-reply may exist where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief” 15 || (cleaned up)); Clark v. County of Tulare, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1090 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“It is improper 16 || for the moving party to ‘shift gears’ and introduce new facts or different legal arguments in the reply 17 || brief than presented in the moving papers.”). As an alternative to ex parte practice, the plaintiffs asked 18 || whether the defendants would stipulate to the filing of this surreply. 19 3. As an effort to avoid ex parte practice and without conceding anything, the defendants 20 || agreed to stipulate that the plaintiffs may file the attached surreply. 21 22 || Dated: June 11, 2026 WARREN TERZIAN LLP 23 24 ___sf/Thomas Warren Thomas D. Warren 25 Counsel for Plaintiffs 26 Brenda Young and Sabrina Skacan 27 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY

1 || Dated: June 11, 2026 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 2 3 s/ Steven Moore Steven W. Moore 4 Counsel for Defendant 5 Renewal by Andersen LLC 6 7 Dated: June 11, 2026 DOLL AMIR & ELEY LLP 8 s/ Hunter Eley 9 Hunter R. Eley 10 Counsel for Defendant River City Window & Door, Inc.

12 ORDER 13 For good cause shown, the stipulation is GRANTED. The plaintiffs are granted leave to file the 14 surreply attached to this stipulation. 15 16 Dated: June 12, 2026 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WARREN TERZIAN LLP 5 Thomas D. Warren (CA 160921) tom.warren@warrenterzian.com 3 || Dan Terzian (CA 283835) dan.terzian@warrenterzian.com 4) 222 N Pacific Coast Hwy, Ste 2000 5 || El Segundo, CA 90245-5614 Telephone: (213) 410-2620 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 and Proposed Class Counsel 8 9 10 1] 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 || BRENDA YOUNG and SABRINA SKACAN, on | Case No. 2:24-cv-01759-DJC-CKD behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, 16 || and the general public, Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta 17 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO GRANT 18 Vs PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST 19 || RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN LLC, a Minnesota | AMENDED COMPLAINT limited liability company, RIVER CITY 20 | WINDOW & DOOR, INC., a California Hearing Date: August 13, 2026 21 || corporation, and DOES 1-10, Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 7 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY

ee II III III IIS IONE INO IDE IEEE □□□ (UIE IES OE

1 Plaintiffs Brenda Young and Sabrina Skacan and Defendants Renewal by Andersen and River 2 || City Window & Door stipulate that Plaintiffs may file the attached surreply to Defendants’ motion to 3 || dismiss the first amended complaint. They request a Court order granting this stipulation. 4 The reasons for this stipulation are: 5 1. The defendants’ reply brief on the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint raises a 6 || new argument. The defendants’ motion to dismiss argued that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 7 over all of the plaintiffs’ claims, including their individual claims for damages and restitution. But the 8 || defendants’ reply states that they withdraw their request to dismiss plaintiffs’ individual claims for 9 || damages and restitution over which they assert the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, 10 || even if the class and public injunctive relief claims lack subject matter jurisdiction. 11 2. Following the reply, the plaintiffs advised that they intend to move ex parte to file the 12 || attached two-page surreply to address the new argument. See McGechie v. Atomos Ltd., No. 2:22-cv- 13 01812-DJC-DB, 2023 WL 2918681, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2023) (Calabretta, J.) (“Good cause to 14 || permit a party to file a sur-reply may exist where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief” 15 || (cleaned up)); Clark v. County of Tulare, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1075, 1090 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“It is improper 16 || for the moving party to ‘shift gears’ and introduce new facts or different legal arguments in the reply 17 || brief than presented in the moving papers.”). As an alternative to ex parte practice, the plaintiffs asked 18 || whether the defendants would stipulate to the filing of this surreply. 19 3. As an effort to avoid ex parte practice and without conceding anything, the defendants 20 || agreed to stipulate that the plaintiffs may file the attached surreply. 21 22 || Dated: June 11, 2026 WARREN TERZIAN LLP 23 24 ___sf/Thomas Warren Thomas D. Warren 25 Counsel for Plaintiffs 26 Brenda Young and Sabrina Skacan 27 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY

1 || Dated: June 11, 2026 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 2 3 s/ Steven Moore Steven W. Moore 4 Counsel for Defendant 5 Renewal by Andersen LLC 6 7 Dated: June 11, 2026 DOLL AMIR & ELEY LLP 8 s/ Hunter Eley 9 Hunter R. Eley 10 Counsel for Defendant River City Window & Door, Inc.

12 ORDER 13 For good cause shown, the stipulation is GRANTED. The plaintiffs are granted leave to file the 14 surreply attached to this stipulation. 15 16 Dated: June 12, 2026 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY

Brenda Young and Sabrina Skacan, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Renewal by Andersen LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, River City Window & Door, Inc., a California corporation, and DOES 1-10, (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Brenda Young and Sabrina Skacan, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Renewal by Andersen LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, River City Window & Door, Inc., a California corporation, and DOES 1-10 (Brenda Young and Sabrina Skacan, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Renewal by Andersen LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, River City Window & Door, Inc., a California corporation, and DOES 1-10) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related