McCoy v. Department of the Army et al

Filing 48

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/23/2010 ORDERING that the Secretary's response to Pltf's Second Amended Complaint is due by 1/31/2011. (Zignago, K.)

-CMK McCoy v. Army Corps of Engineers, et al.

Doc. 48

1 2 3 4 5

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney TODD A. PICKLES Assistant U.S. Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, California 95814 [phone] Main [phone] Facsimile Attorneys for the Secretary of the Army

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Stipulation for Extension of Time To Respond to Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSLYN G. McCOY, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPSARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS and the HONORABLE PETE GEREN, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, collectively, Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-01973 LKK-CMK STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER THERETO

Pursuant to Local Rule 144 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Defendant the Secretary of the Army and the Department of the Army (collectively "Secretary"), and Plaintiff Roslyn McCoy, through their counsel, hereby enter into and submit the following stipulation. RECITALS 1. On Friday, December 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint [D.E.

46]. Under Rules 6 and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a response is due on or before January 4, 2010.

-1-

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

2.

The undersigned counsel for the Secretary has an appellate brief which must be filed on

or before December 31, 2010 in Yasin v. Coulter, et al., Appeal No. 10-15093. He will also be engaged in pretrial matters and preparing for trial in Pronechen v. Napolitano, Case No. 2:06-cv-01726-LEW. Trial is presently set to begin on January 18, 2011. 3. The Secretary will not have sufficient time to respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended

Complaint on or before January 4, 2011, due to lack of availability for the Secretary's counsel. 4 An additional forty-five (45) days should be adequate time to prepare a response to

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. 5. Providing the Secretary additional time to respond does not affect any of the dates set

forth in the Court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order [D.E. 45]. STIPULATION Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate that Defendant the Secretary of the Army shall have an additional days (45) days to respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, with his response due on or before January 31, 2011.

IT IS SO STIPULATED. BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney Date: December 21, 2010 /s/ Todd A. Pickles By: TODD A. PICKLES Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Secretary of the Army

Date: December 22, 2010

/s/ John Ota By: JOHN OTA Attorney for Plaintiff

25 26 27 28
Stipulation for Extension of Time To Respond to Complaint

-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
Stipulation for Extension of Time To Respond to Complaint

ORDER This matter came before the Court on the parties' Stipulation For An Extension Of Time To File A Response To Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated in the Stipulation and for good cause showing under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court ADOPTS the Stipulation and GRANTS the relief requested therein. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The Secretary's response to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is due on or before January 31, 2011. No dates as set forth in the Court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order [D.E. 45] are altered or otherwise affected by this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 23, 2010.

-3-