City of Palmdale v. California High-Speed Rail Authority et al
Filing
26
ORDER re: 25 Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 8/11/11. Defendants shall have two weeks from the date of this Order to file responses to the Complaint. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
WILLIAM L. CARTER, State Bar No. 59215
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
AMY J. WINN, State Bar No. 142421
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 322-1673
Fax: (916) 327-2247
E-mail: Amy.Winn@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys fordefendants the California High-Speed
Rail Authority and Roelof van Ark, Chief Executive
Officer of the California High-Speed Rail Authority
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2:11-CV-01808-GEB-GGH
CITY OF PALMDALE,
Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
v.
Local Rules 143 and 144
Trial Date N/A
Action Filed: July 6, 2011
CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL
AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC AGENCY; ROELOF
VAN ARK, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER; AND
DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,
Originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California,
Case No. LACV11-5545 R (MANx)/Transfer
Defendants. Order dated July 8, 2011
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Second Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint (2:11-CV-01808-GEB-GGH)
1
2
3
The parties to the above matter, through their attorneys of record, stipulate and agree as
follows:
WHEREAS the Court sua sponte requested briefing via an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”)
4
on subject matter jurisdiction by order dated August 2, 2011 and the hearing on this OSC is
5
scheduled for August 29, 2011;
6
7
WHEREAS the parties had earlier stipulated on July 18, 2001 and without leave of court to
extend the time for defendants to respond to the Complaint to August 26, 2011;
8
WHEREAS the parties believe it would serve the best interests of the parties and the court
9
to extend the time for defendants to respond to the Complaint until after the Court has ruled with
10
11
respect to the OSC referenced above;
THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed that defendants shall have two weeks from the
12
date the Court rules on the question of subject matter jurisdiction to file responses to the
13
Complaint.
14
Dated: August __, 2011
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson
15
___________________________
Deborah J. Fox
Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Palmdale
16
17
18
19
Dated: August __, 2011
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
20
21
_____________________________________
Deputy Attorney General Amy J. Winn
Attorneys for State Defendants
22
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 11, 2011
27
28
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
2
Second Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint (2:11-CV-01808-GEB-GGH)
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?