County of Marin v. Deloitte Consulting LLP et al
Filing
80
ORDER adjusting briefing schedule on motions (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
MARK P. RESSLER (pro hac vice)
R. TALI EPSTEIN (pro hac vice)
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
1633 Broadway
New York, New York 10019
Telephone:
(212) 506-1700
Facsimile:
(212) 506-1800
mressler@kasowitz.com
tepstein@kasowitz.com
PATRICK K. FAULKNER (SBN 070801)
County Counsel
SHEILA SHAH LICHTBLAU (SBN 167999)
Deputy County Counsel
3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275
San Rafael, California 94903
Telephone:
(415) 499-6117
Facsimile:
(415) 499-3796
pfaulkner@co.marin.ca.us
slichtblau@co.marin.ca.us
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COUNTY OF MARIN
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
COUNTY OF MARIN,
No. CV11-0381-SI
18
Plaintiff,
19
20
v.
21
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, SAP
AMERICA, INC., SAP PUBLIC SERVICES,
INC. and ERNEST W. CULVER,
22
23
24
25
Defendants.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING (1) PLAINTIFF’S
TIME TO RESPOND IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT DELOITTE
CONSULTING LLP’S MOTION TO
STAY AND RENEWED MOTION TO
REASSIGN; AND (2) DEFENDANT
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP’S TIME
TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTIONS
26
27
28
2277487v1
5/26/2011 1:59 PM
Judge: Honorable Susan Illston
Courtroom: 10, 19th Floor
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER; Case No. CV11-0381-SI
1
2
WHEREAS the County of Marin (the “County”) filed the above-captioned action on
3
December 16, 2010 in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
4
Marin, as case number CIV1006574;
5
WHEREAS defendants removed this action to this Court on January 26, 2011;
6
WHEREAS defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP (“Deloitte Consulting”) filed a motion to
7
stay (Dkt. 66) and a renewed motion to reassign action to referee (Dkt. 67) on May 13, 2011, both
8
originally set for hearing on June 17, 2011;
9
WHEREAS pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a) the County’s responses in opposition to the
10
motion to stay and the renewed motion to reassign action to referee are due on May 27, 2011;
11
12
13
14
WHEREAS pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(c) Deloitte Consulting’s reply briefs in support of
the motion to stay and the renewed motion to reassign action to referee are due on June 3, 2011;
WHEREAS pursuant to the Clerk’s Notice in this matter (Dkt. No. 78) the hearing on these
motions is continued to July 15, 2011;
15
WHEREAS counsel for the County contacted the clerk of the Court regarding the briefing
16
schedule for these motions and was informed that the parties could stipulate to a briefing schedule
17
as long as the briefing was completed on or before June 24, 2011.
18
19
20
21
22
23
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the
undersigned counsel as follows:
The County’s time to file responses in opposition to the motion to stay and the renewed
motion to reassign action to referee is extended to and including June 3, 2011;
Deloitte Consulting’s time to file reply briefs in support of the motion to stay and the
renewed motion to reassign action to referee is extended to and including June 17, 2011.
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER; Case No. CV11-0381-SI
1
IT IS SO STIPULATED
2
3
4
Dated: May 26, 2011
By: ____/s/_Mark P. Ressler______
Mark P. Ressler
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff County of Marin
Dated: May 26, 2011
By: _____/s/_Geoffrey T. Holtz
Geoffrey T. Holtz
Bingham McCutchen LLP
Attorney for Defendant Deloitte Consulting LLP
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Attestation: The filer of this document attests that the concurrence of the other signatories
thereto has been obtained.
14
15
16
PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING
THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
19
20
5/26/11
________________________
Hon. Susan Illston
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER; Case No. CV11-0381-SI
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?