Duenas v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 28

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT.Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/11/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2011)

*E-Filed 4/11/11*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

JAMES M. WAGSTAFFE (95535)
Email: [e-mail]
MARIA V. RADWICK (253780)
Email: [e-mail]
KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP
100 Spear Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105–1528
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
STARR BABCOCK (63473)
Email: [e-mail]
LAWRENCE C. YEE (84208)
Email: [e-mail]
MARK TORRES-GIL (91597)
Email: [e-mail]
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
JAMES TOWERY, in his official capacity as Chief
Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18

CHRISTOPHER P. DUENAS, and MICHAEL
L. SCHULTE,
Plaintiffs

19
20

v.

21

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., in his official
capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA
D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney
General of California; JAMES TOWERY in his
official capacity as Chief Trial Counsel of the
State Bar of California,

22
23
24
25

Case No. 10-CV-05884-RS
STIPULATION RE: MOTIONS TO
DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER THEREON

HON. RICHARD SEEBORG

Defendants.

26
27
28
K ER R
––––– & –––––
W AG ST AF FE
L L P

Case No. 10-CV-05884-RS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

By Order dated April 6, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend to file the

2

proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) attached to his reply memorandum in support of

3

his motion to amend and denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss the original and proposed First

4

Amended Complaint without prejudice to their filing motions to dismiss the SAC.

5
6

Following the Court’s Order, the parties met and conferred and agreed to the following
schedule with regard to the SAC.

7

April 28, 2011:

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

8

May 12, 2011

Plaintiffs’ Opposition

9

May 19, 2011

Defendants’ Reply Memoranda

10

June 2, 2011

Hearing on Motions to Dismiss

11
12
13

In addition, Defendants have agreed to accept electronic service of the SAC.
DATED : April 11, 2011

14

s/James M. Wagstaffe
By _________________________________________
JAMES M. WAGSTAFFE

15
16

Attorneys for Defendant JAMES TOWERY in his
official capacity as the Chief Trial Counsel of the
State Bar of California

17
18
19

KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP

DATED : April 11, 2011

20

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
By _________________________________________
s/S. Michele Inan
KAMALA D. HARRIS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
ZACKERY P. M ORAZZINI
SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
S. MICHELE INAN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

21
22
23
24

Attorneys for Defendants Edmund G. Brown Jr.,
Governor of California and Kamala D. Harris,
Attorney General of California

25
26
27
28
K ER R
––––– & –––––
W AG ST AF FE
L L P

Case No. 10-CV-05884-RS

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

DATED : April 11, 2011

2

s/Sean Richard Olender
By _________________________________________
SEAN RICHARD OLENDER

3
4

Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHRISTOPHER P.
DUENAS and MICHAEL L. SCHULTE

5
6
7
8

OLENDER PHAM

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4/11
Dated: _________________________, 2011

________________________________
HON. RICHARD SEEBORG

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K ER R
––––– & –––––
W AG ST AF FE
L L P

Case No. 10-CV-05884-RS

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER