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)

Download PDF
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?