Jesus Gonzalez v. United States Department of Justice

Filing 14

STIPULATION and ORDER TO VACATE HEARING AND TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE REPLY PAPERS signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on September 20, 2013. (Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney 2 HEATHER MARDEL JONES Assistant United States Attorney 3 2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401 Fresno, California 93721 4 Telephone: (559) 497-4000 5 Facsimile: (559) 497-4099 6 Attorneys for United States of America 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 CASE NO. 1:13-CV-00575-LJO-SKO v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, STIPULATION AND ORDER TO VACATE HEARING AND TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE REPLY PAPERS ADDITIONAL COURT LANGUAGE ADDED Defendant. 16 17 It is hereby stipulated by and between the United States and Plaintiff Jesus 18 19 Gonzalez, by and through their respective attorneys, as follows: 20 1. On April 22, 2013, Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez filed the instant complaint. Jesus 21 Gonzalez v. United States Department of Justice, 1:13-CV-00575-LJO-SKO, 22 Complaint, ECF No. 7. 23 24 25 26 2. On August 22, 2013, the United States filed its Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11. 3. On September 13, 2013, Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez filed his Response to the United States’ Motion to Dismiss. Response to Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14. 27 28 30 Stipulation and Order Resetting the Hearing on the United States’ Motion to Dismiss and Extending the United States’ Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition 1 1 4. The extension of time is requested due to the press of business and current 2 commitments by the United States, and in particular, the United States is currently 3 preparing an opposition to a lengthy and complex matter, in case Nottoli et. al., v. 4 United States, 1:13-MC-00049-BAM, due on the same date at the instant Reply is 5 due (September 27, 2013). As such, the parties have stipulated and agreed to re-set 6 the currently scheduled hearing and extend the time in which the United States is 7 to file its Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss. 8 5. For these reasons, the parties jointly agree and stipulate to the following new dates: CURRENT DATE 9 10 11 Hearing on USA’s Motion to Dismiss: USA’s Reply to be filed by: PROPOSED DATE October 4, 2013 October 25, 2013 September 27, 2013 October 18, 2013 12 13 6. Additionally, given the current posture of the case, with a dispositive Motion to 14 Dismiss pending, the parties jointly request that the currently scheduled 15 Mandatory Scheduling Conference, set on Friday September 27, 2013, be vacated 16 and reset, if necessary, upon the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss. 17 Dated: September 19, 2013 18 /s/ Heather Mardel Jones HEATHER MARDEL JONES Assistant United States Attorney 19 20 21 Dated: September 19, 2013 22 23 24 25 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney /s/ Rodney Rusc, Jr. RODNEY RUSCA, JR. Attorney for Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez (original signature retained by attorney) ORDER Based on the parties' stipulation, this Court: 26 1. VACATES the October 4, 2013 hearing on the Government's motion to dismiss and ELECTS not to reset the hearing; and 27 2 Stipulation and Order Resetting the Hearing on the 28 United States’ Motion to Dismiss and Extending the United States’ Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition 30 1 2. ORDERS the Government, no later than October 18, 2013, to file and serve reply papers. 2 Pursuant to its practice, this Court will consider the Government's motion to 3 dismiss on the record without oral argument and issue a written order. See Local Rule 230(g). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 7 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill September 20, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Sign ature-END: 8 9 66h44d 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 Stipulation and Order Resetting the Hearing on the United States’ Motion to Dismiss and Extending the United States’ Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?