The Peace and Freedom Party et al v. Bowen

Filing 22

STIPULATION and ORDER 20 to change hearing and briefing schedule on signed on District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 8/13/2012. Defendant's 14 Motion to Dismiss Hearing is CONTINUED to 9/10/2012 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB). Opposition to Motion shall be due on 8/20/2012 and defendant's Reply shall be due 9/3/2012. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672 Attorney General of California TAMAR PACHTER, State Bar No. 146083 Supervising Deputy Attorney General ALEXANDRA ROBERT GORDON,State Bar No. 207650 Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5509 Fax: (415) 703-5480 E-mail: Alexandra.RobertGordon@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendant Secretary of State Debra Bowen 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 PEACE AND FREEDOM PARTY, PETA LINDSAY, and RICHARD BECKER, 14 15 v. 12-00853-GEB-EFB STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] Plaintiffs, ORDER RE CHANGING HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 16 (Local Rule 230(f)) 17 18 DEBRA BOWEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of California, Courtroom: 10 Judge: The Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Defendant. Action Filed: April 3, 2012 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (12-00853-GEB-EFB) 1 Plaintiffs The Peace and Freedom Party, Peta Lindsay, and Richard Becker (collectively, 2 the “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Secretary of State of California Debra Bowen (collectively, the 3 “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 4 5 6 WHEREAS, on May 25, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, currently set for hearing on August 27, 2012; WHEREAS, on August 10, 2012, counsel for Plaintiffs notified counsel for Defendant 7 that a conflict had arisen on the August 27, 2012 hearing date and proposed continuing the 8 hearing date to September 10, 2012 or the earliest date thereafter that is convenient for the Court; 9 WHEREAS, counsel for Defendant is amenable to the proposed continuance so long as it 10 is acceptable to the Court; 11 WHEREAS, if the Court continues the hearing to September 10, 2012, or a date 12 thereafter, the parties wish to modify the briefing schedule so that, pursuant to Local Rule 230, 13 Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss would be due on August 20, 2012, and Defendant’s 14 reply would be due on September 3, 2012; 15 16 WHEREAS, no previous extensions of time or continuances have been sought on this motion; 17 THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby stipulated that: 18 The hearing date on Defendant’s motion to dismiss shall be continued until September 10, 19 20 21 22 2012, or the earliest date thereafter that is convenient for the Court; Pursuant to Local Rule 230, Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss shall be due on August 20, 2012; and Pursuant to Local Rule 230, Defendant’s reply shall be due on September 3, 2012. 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (12-00853-GEB-EFB) 1 Dated: August 10, 2012 By: KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California TAMAR PACHTER Supervising Deputy Attorney General 2 3 /s/ Alexandra Robert Gordon ALEXANDRA ROBERT GORDON Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Secretary of State Debra Bowen 4 5 6 7 Dated: August 10, 2012 By: BARNES LAW 8 /s/ Robert Barnes ROBERT BARNES Attorneys for Plaintiffs Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement 9 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 8/13/2012 14 15 ___________________________________ GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge 16 17 DEAC_Signature-END: 18 19 61khh4bb 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (12-00853-GEB-EFB)

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?