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)

Download PDF
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?