City of Los Angeles, et al. v. Cellco Partnership

Filing 66

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/29/2017 ORDERING the defendant to file a Motion to Dismiss by 7/6/2017; ORDERING the plaintiff to file an opposition to said motion by 8/17/2017; ORDERING that any reply be filed by 8/24/2017. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
Kurt A. Kappes (SBN No. 146384)
1201 K Street, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 916-448-1708

5
6
7

Attorneys for Defendant
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A
VERIZON WIRELESS

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

CITY OF LOS ANGELES ex rel.
RICHARD KNUDSEN,

13
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16

vs.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON
WIRELESS, and DOES 11-20,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00810-TLN-AC
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANT CELLCO PARTNERSHIP
D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS TO FILE
MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION; ORDER

17
18

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00810-TLN-AC
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR VERIZON TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS

1

RECITALS

2

Plaintiff City of Los Angeles (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon

3

Wireless (“Verizon” or “Defendant”) (collectively the “Parties”) state as follows:
1.

4

On September 9, 2016, the City of Los Angeles filed a Complaint in Intervention, in the

5

above-referenced matter, naming Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and Does 11-20 as

6

Defendants in its case against Verizon (“Complaint”).
2.

7

Defendant removed this action to this Court by filing a Notice of Removal on October 7,

8

2016, and Plaintiff moved to remand or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Eastern District of

9

California.
3.

10
11

but granted Plaintiff’s alternative motion to transfer the matter to the Eastern District.
4.

12
13

On April 17, 2017 the Honorable Dale S. Fischer denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand,

The parties previously agreed that Defendant’s motion to dismiss this case would be filed

on June 30, 2017, and that Plaintiff’s opposition would be due on August 11, 2017. See ECF No. 64.
5.

14

Counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant have met and conferred regarding the

15

current deadline for Defendant to file its motion to dismiss and the briefing schedule, and due to an

16

emergent matter, the parties have agreed to a very brief extension of dates for their initial filings. These

17

brief extensions will have no impact on the date for Defendant’s reply brief, which shall remain due on

18

August 24, 2017, as set forth in the parties’ Rule 26(f) Report, nor will it impact the hearing date, which

19

remains September 7, 2017.
6.

21
22
23

The parties also do not seek to alter the briefing schedule in the two cases related to this

7.

20

The parties shall not file any further requests for extensions relating to Defendant’s

matter.

motion to dismiss.
STIPULATION

24
25

It is hereby stipulated and agreed between the Parties as follows that:

26

8.

Defendant has up to and including July 6, 2017 to file its motion to dismiss.

27

9.

Plaintiff’s opposition will be due on August 17, 2017.

28

10.

Defendant’s reply will be due on August 24, 2017.

1
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00810-TLN-AC
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR VERIZON TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS

11.

1

Given the above, the lack of prejudice to either side, and the retention of the date for (i)

2

Defendant’s reply brief and (ii) the hearing date of September 7, 2017 and for cause, the Parties

3

respectfully request that the Court approve this Stipulation and order that Defendant’s motion to dismiss

4

be due by July 6, 2017 and Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss be due August 17,

5

2017.

6
7

Dated: June 29, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

8
9

By: /s/Kurt A. Kappes
Kurt A. Kappes
Attorneys for Defendant
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A
VERIZON WIRELESS

10
11
12
13
14

Dated: June 29, 2017

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP

15
16
17

By: /s/ Eric J. Buescher (as authorized 6/29/17)
ERIC J. BUESCHER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
City of Los Angeles

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00810-TLN-AC
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR VERIZON TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS

ORDER

1
2
3

The Court, having reviewed the stipulation to extend time for Defendant to file its motion to
dismiss orders as follows:

4

1.

Defendant has up to and including July 6, 2017 to file a motion to dismiss.

5

2.

Plaintiff’s opposition will be due on August 17, 2017.

6

3.

Defendant’s reply will be due on August 24, 2017

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED

9
10

Date: June 29, 2017

11
12
13
14

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00810-TLN-AC
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR VERIZON TO FILE MOTION TO DISMISS