Jackson et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 53

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/29/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2010)

Jackson et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Doc. 53

*E-Filed 11/29/10*

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 28

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137 SHERRI SOKELAND KAISER, State Bar #197986 Deputy City Attorneys 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place City Hall, Room 234 San Francisco, California 94102-4682 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-Mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM and POLICE CHIEF GEORGE GASCÓN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESPANOLA JACKSON, PAUL COLVIN, THOMAS BOYER, LARRY BARSETTI, DAVID GOLDEN, NOEMI MARGARET ROBINSON, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. SAN FRANCISCO VETERAN POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity; POLICE CHIEF GEORGE GASCÓN, in his official capacity, and Does 1-10, Defendants.

Case No. C09-2143 RS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

In its September 27, 2010 Order re Motion to Extend Response Time and Page Limits, this Court provided that: Defendants shall file a response to the complaint or the amended complaint no later than 20 days after the issue of consolidation is settled, or 60 days from the
STIP & ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND USDC No. C09-2143 RS

1

n:\govlit\li2009\091333\00665643.doc

Dockets.Justia.com

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 28 Date:

date of this order, whichever occurs first. In the event a motion to consolidate is on calendar or has been heard but not yet decided at the expiration of 60 days, defendants may seek a further extension by stipulation or by motion under Rule 6-3. The same day, defendants filed their motion to consolidate and scheduled it for hearing on December 9, 2010. In light of the Court's suggestion that it may be appropriate to adjust the time for defendants to respond, and given that the motion to consolidate is scheduled to be heard shortly, the parties hereby stipulate and ask the Court to order as follows: (1) Defendants shall respond to plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint no later than 20 days after the Court rules on defendants' motion to consolidate; and (2) This agreement is intended solely to facilitate orderly case management and shall not be construed to indicate that the Jackson plaintiffs consent to any delay to their case as a result of consolidation. Defendants explicitly waive any such argument.

Dated: November 29, 2010 By: s/Sherri Sokeland Kaiser SHERRI SOKELAND KAISER Attorney for Defendants Dated: November 29, 2010 By:**s/Clint Monfort CLINT MONFORT Attorney for Plaintiffs **pursuant to GO 45, the electronic signatory has obtained approval from this signatory. IT IS SO ORDERED: 11/29/10 The Honorable Richard Seeborg Judge of the United States District Court

STIP & ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND USDC No. C09-2143 RS

2

n:\govlit\li2009\091333\00665643.doc