Bucheit v. Dennis et al

Filing 34

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEF TOWN OF ATHERTON'S MOTON TO DISMISS Responses due by 4/2/2010. Replies due by 4/9/2010. Motion Hearing re-set for 5/7/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed, as modified, by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 2/23/10. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2010)

Case3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document32

Filed02/18/10 Page1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6

ROBERT E. CAREY, JR. (SBN 47556) JERRY Y. FONG, ESQ. (SBN 99673) CAREY & CAREY 706 COWPER STREET P.O. BOX 1040 PALO ALTO, CA 94302-1040 650/328-5510 650/853-3632 fax [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff JONATHAN B. BUCKHEIT

7 8 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12 13 14 15 16 17 18

JONATHAN B. BUCKHEIT, Plaintiff, vs. TONY DENNIS, DEAN DEVLUGT, THE TOWN OF ATHERTON, THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, and DOES 1-500, inclusive, Defendants.

19 20

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.

CV 09-5000 JCS

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEF. TOWN OF ATHERTON'S MOTION TO DISMISS & PROPOSED ORDER. Date: April 23, 2010 Time: 9:30 a.m. Mag. Judge: Hon. Joseph C. Spero

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 (a) and 7-12, Plaintiff Jonathan Buckheit and Defendants
21

Town of Atherton, Tony Dennis, Dean DeVlugt, and Anthony Kockler hereby stipulate to
22

request that the Court order the extension of the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff's
23

Opposition to these Defendants' joint Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
24

Complaint (currently scheduled to be heard on April 23, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. before this Court),
25

from February 19, 2010 to April 2, 2010, and, correspondingly, extend Defendants Atherton,
26

Dennis, DeVlugt, and Kockler's deadline to file its reply from February 26, 2010 to April 9,
27

2010. The extension of time would not affect the hearing date of the motion (April 23,
28

2010).
1 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MTN TO DISMISS BY TOWN OF ATHERTON

Case3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document32

Filed02/18/10 Page2 of 3

1 2 3

It is so stipulated.

DATED: 2/18/10
4 5 6 7 8 9 10

/s/ JERRY Y. FONG, for Plaintiff JONATHAN BUCKHEIT

DATED: 2/18/10

/s/ PATRICK R. CO, for Defendants TOWN OF ATHERTON, TONY DENNIS, DEAN DEVLUGT, AND ANTHONY KOCKLER

This stipulation is supported by the following declaration of Attorney Jerry Fong:
11

DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY JERRY FONG
12

I, Jerry Fong, declare:
13

1.
14 15

I am an attorney licensed to practice before this Court and am one of the

attorneys for Plaintiff Jonathan Buckheit. 2.
16

I make this declaration in compliance with Local Rule 6-2 (a). Currently, Defendants Town of Atherton, Tony Dennis, Dean DeVlugt, and

3.
17 18

Anthony Kockler's joint motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is scheduled to be heard on April 23, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., before this Court.
19

4.
20 21

The Court set February 19, 2010, as the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff's

Opposition and February 26, 2010, as the deadline for the filing of Defendants Town, Dennis, DeVlugt, and Kockler's Reply.
22

5.
23 24

At the same time, Defendant County of San Mateo also filed its motion to

dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. That motion is also scheduled to be heard on April 23, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. before this Court. However, unlike the motion by Defendants
25

Town, Dennis, DeVlugt, and Kockler, San Mateo County's motion has a different briefing
26

schedule. Under the local rules, Plaintiff's opposition to San Mateo County's motion is due
27

on April 2, 2010, and San Mateo's reply is due on April 9, 2010.
28

6.

I have spoken with Alan Chang, one of the attorneys with Clapp, Moroney,

2 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MTN TO DISMISS BY TOWN OF ATHERTON

Case3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document32

Filed02/18/10 Page3 of 3

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

Bellagamba, Vucinich, Beeman & Scheley, the law firm representing Defendants Town of Atherton, et al., in this case. He and I agree that, for efficiency and uniformity's sake, the two separate sets of motions should be placed on the same briefing schedule track: Plaintiff's opposition due on April 2, 2010, and Defendants' replies due on April 9, 2010. 7. In addition, Plaintiff needs more time to file its Opposition because both

attorneys for Plaintiff are currently tied up in extended depositions in multi-party cases. 8. This is the first request for any extension of time relating to Defendants Town,

Dennis, DeVlugt, and Kockler's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Previously, there was one extension granted to Plaintiff (for a period of 3 days) to file it opposition to County of San Mateo's first motion to dismiss (relating to Plaintiff's original complaint). 9. Because the hearing is scheduled on April 23, 2010, the requested extension

of time should not affect the hearing date. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 18, 2010.

/s/ JERRY Y. FONG

[PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: Plaintiff shall file his

Opposition to Defendants' Town of Atherton, et. al.,'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint on April 2, 2010, and the Defendants shall file their Replies, if any, on
is rescheduled to May 7, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

April 9, 2010. The hearing shall remain on April 23, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.
UNIT ED

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

3 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MTN TO DISMISS BY TOWN OF ATHERTON

A

C

LI

MAGISTRATE-JUDGE OF THE UNITED pero ph C. S STATES DISTRICT COURT Judge Jose
NO

FO

R NIA

DATED: 2/23/10

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

ERED O ORD D IT IS S ODIFIE AS M

RT U O

RT

H