Wiese et al., v. Becerra, et al.,
Filing
46
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 6/16/17 ORDERING that Defendant's last day to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint shall be no later than 21 days after entry of this Court's order regarding the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
XAVIER BECERRA, State Bar No. 118517
Attorney General of California
TAMAR PACHTER, State Bar No. 146083
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
ALEXANDRA ROBERT GORDON, State Bar No. 207650
Deputy Attorney General
JOHN D. ECHEVERRIA, State Bar No. 268843
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 Defendants
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
12
13
WILLIAM WIESE, et al.,
2:17-cv-00903-WBS-KJN
14
Plaintiffs, STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF
TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
15
v.
16
(Local Rule 144(a))
17
18
19
XAVIER BECERRA, et al.,
Defendants. Courtroom:
Judge:
Trial Date:
Action Filed:
5, 14th Floor
Hon. William B. Shubb
None Set
April 28, 2017
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order (2:17-cv-00903-WBS-KJN)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiffs William Wiese, Jeremiah Morris, Lance Cowley, Sherman Macaston, Adam
Richards, Clifford Flores, L.Q. Dang, Frank Federeau, Alan Normandy, Todd Nielsen, the
Calguns Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and Second
Amendment Foundation (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Attorney General Xavier
Becerra, in his official capacity, and Acting Chief Martha Supernor (collectively, “Defendants,”
and together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby
stipulate and agree as follows:
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief;
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2017, the parties stipulated to and Defendants filed a stipulation
for an extension of time to respond to the originally-filed complaint;
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief;
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2017 Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was renewed and refiled on June 14, 2017;
WHEREAS, Defendants’ last day to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint currently is June 20, 2017;
WHEREAS, in the interest of efficiency and economy, the Parties agree that Defendants’
time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint should be extended until after the
resolution of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction;
WHEREAS, no previous extensions have been sought since the filing of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint;
THEREFORE, pursuant to Local Rule 144 (a) and in consideration of the foregoing, it is
hereby stipulated that:
Defendant’s last day to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint shall be no later than 21 days after entry of this Court’s order regarding the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
28
2
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order (2:17-cv-00903-WBS-KJN)
1
Dated: June 15, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
2
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
TAMAR PACHTER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
JOHN D. ECHEVERRIA
Deputy Attorney General
3
4
5
6
/s/ Alexandra Robert Gordon
ALEXANDRA ROBERT GORDON
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
7
8
Dated: June 15, 2017
Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate LLP
9
10
11
/s/ George M. Lee
GEORGE M. LEE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
13
14
15
HAVING CONSIDERED THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, AND GOOD CAUSE
APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED:
16
17
Dated: June 16, 2017
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order (2:17-cv-00903-WBS-KJN)
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?