United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 61

STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Re: Extension of Time for the State of California to Respond to the United States' Complaint by Xavier Becerra, Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr, State of California. (Hakl, Anthony)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
THOMAS PATTERSON
Senior Assistant Attorney General
MICHAEL NEWMAN
SATOSHI YANAI
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
CHRISTINE CHUANG
ANTHONY HAKL
CHEROKEE DM MELTON
LEE I. SHERMAN
Deputy Attorneys General
State Bar No. 272271
300 S. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN

16
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20
21
22

v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND
GERALD BROWN JR., Governor of
California, in his official capacity; and
XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of
California, in his official capacity,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO
RESPOND TO THE UNITED STATES’
COMPLAINT
Judge: Honorable John A. Mendez
Action Filed: March 6, 2018

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Extension of Time to Respond to the United States’ Complaint
(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

The United States of America (“United States”) served its complaint on Defendants State of

2

California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor of California in his official capacity, and Xavier

3

Becerra, Attorney General of California, in his official capacity (collectively, “the State of

4

California”) on March 7, 2018. On March 27, 2018, pursuant to Local Rule 144 the parties filed

5

an initial stipulation extending the State of California’s time to respond to the United States’

6

complaint by 28 days, up to and including April 25, 2018. The State of California intends to file

7

a motion to dismiss the United States’ complaint, which in Defendants’ view, will likely include

8

issues overlapping with the motion for preliminary injunction.

9

In addition, the parties are aware of the possibility that third parties may move to intervene

10

in this action. On April 20, 2018, the County of Orange moved to intervene (Dkt. No. 59).

11

Should the County of Orange or any other putative intervener be granted leave to intervene, any

12

motions to dismiss the complaints in intervention may require a briefing schedule concerning

13

potentially overlapping issues in a separate motion or motions to dismiss.

14

In light of the foregoing, and in order to allow the parties to confer on the most efficient

15

means of briefing Defendants’ motion to dismiss and any motions to intervene and/or motions to

16

dismiss any complaints in intervention, the parties therefore stipulate and agree as follows:

17

1.

The State of California be allowed an additional extension of time to respond to the

18

United States’ complaint of no more than nine (9) days, until May 4, 2018, which is the same date

19

the State of California’s opposition to the United States’ motion for preliminary injunction is due.

20

This is the second extension of time sought by Defendants in this matter.

21

2.

Furthermore, the parties have met and conferred regarding the remainder of the

22

motion to dismiss briefing schedule and the date of the hearing on the State of California’s

23

motion to dismiss in light of the County of Orange’s motion to intervene and other possible

24

motions, but have been unable to reach agreement. Therefore, the parties further stipulate that

25

they will continue to meet and confer regarding the impact of the pending intervention motions on

26

the schedule for the State of California’s motion to dismiss and any other motions and pleadings

27

necessitated by the participation of any putative interveners in this case, and respectfully seek

28

leave to file a joint status report on or before April 27, 2018, which shall summarize the parties’
1
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Extension of Time to Respond to the United States’ Complaint
(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

respective positions on the schedule for the State of California’s motion to dismiss in light of any

2

pending intervention motions, briefing on any motions to intervene and, if such motions are

3

granted, motions to dismiss any complaints in intervention, and request the Court to set an

4

appropriate schedule.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Dated: April 23, 2018

Respectfully Submitted,

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
MCGREGOR SCOTT
United States Attorney
AUGUST FLETJE
Special Counsel
EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
DAVID SHELLEDY
Civil Chief, Assistant United States Attorney
LAUREN C. BINGHAM
JOSEPH A. DARROW
JOSHUA S. PRESS

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
THOMAS PATTERSON
Senior Assistant Attorney General
MICHAEL NEWMAN
SATOSHI YANAI
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
CHRISTINE CHUANG
ANTHONY HAKL
CHEROKEE DM MELTON

/s/ Erez Reuveni

_____________________
Anthony Hakl
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for the State of California

/s/ Anthony Hakl

_____________________
Erez Reuveni
Assistant Director
Attorneys for the United States
of America

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Extension of Time to Respond to the United States’ Complaint
(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Having considered the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. The State of California’s time to respond to the complaint is extended an additional nine

4
5

(9) days, up to and including May 4, 2018;
2. If the parties cannot agree on a schedule for any motions to dismiss, including in the

6

event any motions to intervene are filed, they shall file a joint status report on or before April 27,

7

2018, which summarizes any disagreement and their respective positions; addresses the status of

8

any intervention motions and their impact, if any, on the current pleading deadlines; and requests

9

the Court to set an appropriate schedule.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: ________________________________

13
14
15

________________________________
Judge John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Extension of Time to Respond to the United States’ Complaint
(18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case Name:

The United States of America v.
The State of California, et al

No.

2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN

I hereby certify that on April 23, 2018, I electronically filed the following documents with the
Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO RESPOND TO THE UNITED STATES’ COMPLAINT
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on April 23, 2018, at Sacramento, California.

Tursun Bier
Declarant
LA2018500720
13057711.docx

/s/ Tursun Bier
Signature