Andrew et al v. City of Sacramento et al
Filing
15
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 12/21/2017 ORDERING that defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint is 2/19/2018. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
RANDALL W. EDWARDS (C.S.B. #179053)
redwards@omm.com
SUSANNAH K. HOWARD (C.S.B #291326)
showard@omm.com
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center
28ᵗʰ Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-3823
Telephone:
+1 415 984 8700
Facsimile:
+1 415 984 8701
Attorneys for Defendant
NATIONWIDE INVESTMENT SERVICES
CORPORATION
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
CHRIS ANDREW and RICHARD
MAYBERRY, suing individually and by and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Case No. 2:17-cv-02266-JAM-KJN
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT (SECOND REQUEST)
v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO; NATIONWIDE
INVESTMENT SERVICES CORPORATION,
an Ohio Corporation; INTERNATIONAL
CITY/COUNTY MANAGERS
ASSOCIATION-RETIREMENT
CORPORATION, a District of Columbia
Company,
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPL.
2:17-CV-02266-JAM-KJN
1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 144(a), Plaintiffs Chris Andrew and Richard Mayberry
2
(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants City of Sacramento (the “City”), Nationwide Investment Services
3
Corporation (“Nationwide”), and International City/County Managers Association-Retirement
4
Corporation (“ICMA”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby stipulate and agree, subject to Court
5
approval, to extend the time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint by 45 days, such that
6
Defendants new response date would be February 19, 2018. The parties have agreed to enter into
7
settlement discussions, and postponing the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint
8
would allow the parties to focus their efforts on these discussions, rather than on drafting
9
responsive pleadings or motions. This is the second time each Defendant has requested Court
10
approval for an extension of time to respond to the Complaint. Each Defendant previously filed a
11
stipulated request for an extension to respond to the Complaint until January 5, 2018, all of which
12
were subsequently granted by the Court. See Doc. Nos. 9, 12 & 13. These prior stipulations
13
extended Nationwide’s and the City’s time to respond to the Complaint by 45 days (Doc. Nos. 9
14
& 12), and extended ICMA’s time to respond to the Complaint by 16 days (Doc. No. 13). This
15
request would not affect any other court-ordered deadline.
16
17
[signature page follows]
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
STIP. TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPL.
2:17-CV-02266-JAM-KJN
1
Dated: December 20, 2017
2
Respectfully submitted,
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
3
4
By:
/s/ Randall W. Edwards
Randall W. Edwards
Attorneys for Defendant
NATIONWIDE INVESTMENT SERVICES
CORPORATION
5
6
7
Dated: December 20, 2017
8
Respectfully submitted,
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
9
10
By: /s/ Jeffrey R. A. Edwards
(as authorized on December 20, 2017)
Jeffrey R. A. Edwards
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CHRIS ANDREW and RICHARD
MAYBERRY
11
12
13
14
Dated: December 20, 2017
BUCHALTER
15
16
By:
/s/ Kevin T. Collins
Kevin T. Collins
(as authorized on December 20, 2017)
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
17
18
19
20
21
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: December 20, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
MAYER BROWN, LLP
22
23
24
25
26
By:
/s/ Andrew Z. Edelstein
Andrew Z. Edelstein
(as authorized on December 20, 2017)
Attorneys for Defendant
INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY
MANAGERS ASSOCIATION-RETIREMENT
CORPORATION
27
28
-3-
STIP. TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPL.
2:17-CV-02266-JAM-KJN
1
2
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Complaint shall be February 19,
2018.
DATED: 12/21/2017
/s/ John A. Mendez_____________
Hon. John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
STIP. TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS TIME
TO RESPOND TO COMPL.
2:17-CV-02266-JAM-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?