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)
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?