Lull et al v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 39

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/21/2017 ORDERING the defendants to respond to the 35 Second Amended Complaint by 10/13/2017. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP
ROBERT L. CHALFANT, SBN 203051
Email: [e-mail]
WENDY MOTOOKA, SBN 233589
Email: [e-mail]
701 University Avenue, Suite 110
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO, LORI MOSS, LEIGHANN
MOFFITT, BRIAN WASHKO, ROBIN
RASMUSSEN, BOB IVIE, JOHN MUZINICH,
SCOTT PURVIS, RUSS WILLIAMS, WAYNE
EASTMAN, JUNE POWELLS-MAYS, TAMMY
DERBY, PAUL MUNOZ, CYNDI LEE,
FLORENCE EVANS, JARED WICKLIFF

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14

AUTOTEK, INC. and CHRISTOPHER
LULL,

15
16
17
18

Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01093 KJM CKD
STIPULATION
TO
EXTEND
DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’
SECOND
AMENDED
COMPLAINT; ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.
Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24

WHEREAS on July 25, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint with leave to amend, within 14 days, as to five causes of action (Doc. 31);
WHEREAS the Court entered the parties’ proposed stipulated orders to extend plaintiffs’
time to file the Second Amended Complaint to September 8, 2017 (Docs. 32-36);

25

WHEREAS on September 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint;

26

WHEREAS the County defendants met and conferred with plaintiffs on September 18,

27

2017, to discuss whether the Second Amended Complaint exceeds the scope of leave to amend

28

granted, and whether the Second Amended Complaint states a claim upon which relief can be
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEF.S’ TIME TO
RESPOND TO SAC
Case No. 2:16-cv-01093 KJM CKD

1

1

granted;

2

WHEREAS plaintiffs would like additional time consider the County defendants’

3

intended challenge to the Second Amended Complaint, and whether and how this challenge might

4

be limited or resolved without further motions practice;

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

WHEREAS the SMUD defendants also intend to meet and confer with plaintiffs about the
propriety and/or sufficiency of the Second Amended Complaint; and
WHEREAS the parties agree that an additional three weeks is needed to fully address
these issues;
THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate, by and through their counsel of record, as
follows:
1.

Defendants shall have a three-week extension of time, to October 13, 2017, to

12

respond to the Second Amended Complaint in any manner permitted by the Federal Rules of

13

Civil Procedure.

14

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

15
Respectfully submitted,
16
17

Dated: September 18, 2017

VAUGHAN & ASSOCIATES
/s/ Cris C. Vaughan
CRIS C. VAUGHAN, SBN 99568
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Autotek,
Christopher Lull

18
19

Inc.

and

20
21

Dated: September 18, 2017

22

CREGGER & CHALFANT LLP
/s/ Wendy Motooka
WENDY MOTOOKA
Attorneys for the County of Sacramento Defendants

23
24
25

Dated: September 18, 2017

MURPHY, CAMPBELL, ALLISTON & QUINN
/s/ Susan DeNardo
SUSAN DENARDO, SBN 235166
Attorneys for Defendant Sacramento Municipal
Utility District

26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEF.S’ TIME TO
RESPOND TO SAC
Case No. 2:16-cv-01093 KJM CKD

2

1
2
3
4

ORDER
After considering the Stipulation by and between the parties through their counsel of
record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Defendants shall have a three-week extension of time, to October 13, 2017, to

5

respond to the Second Amended Complaint in any manner permitted by the Federal Rules of

6

Civil Procedure.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: September 21, 2017.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEF.S’ TIME TO
RESPOND TO SAC
Case No. 2:16-cv-01093 KJM CKD

3