Righetti v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 89

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 88 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER _ EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT [L.R. 6-1(a)] __ filed by Gerald Righetti, Neil Richman. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/4/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JOHN SUPPLE (#94582)
[e-mail]
ROBERT DEERING (#258043)
[e-mail]
ROBERT D. SANFORD (#129790)
[e-mail]
SUPPLE & CANVEL, LLP
2320 Marinship Way, Suite 301
Sausalito, CA 94965
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
NEIL RICHMAN, M.D.

8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUPPLE & CANVEL, LLP
2320 Marinship Way, Sutie 301
Sausalito, CA 94965

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

GERALD S. RIGHETTI,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et
al.,
Defendants.

17

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

CASE NO.3:11-CV-02717-EMC
STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT [L.R. 61(a).]
Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen
Trial Date: None Set
Action Filed: June 6, 2011

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5

Pursuant to the United States District Court, Northern District of California Local Rule
Rule 6-1(a) and 6-2, Plaintiff Gerald Righetti and Defendant Neil Richman, M.D. stipulate and
request that the Court order that Dr. Richman shall have until fourteen dates after the next Case
Management Conference, currently set for January 3, 2013, to respond to Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint.

6
7
8
9

SUPPLE & CANVEL, LLP
2320 Marinship Way, Sutie 301
Sausalito, CA 94965

10
11

As required by Local Rule 6-2, the parties agree that the extension is necessary since the
Court granted Plaintiff until January 14, 2013 to file an amended complaint (Docket No. 80) and
the Second Amended Complaint does not allege any new facts as to Dr. Richman. By January
14, 2013, Plaintiff will either file a dismissal as to Dr. Richman or an amended complaint
alleging new facts as to Dr. Richman. This is the first extension of time requested to respond to
the Second Amended Complaint and will not affect the current schedule of the action.

12

Respectfully submitted,

13
14

Dated: November 30, 2012

SUPPLE & CANVEL, LLP

15
By: _____/s Robert D. Sanford______________
Robert D. Sanford
Attorney for Defendant
NEIL RICHMAN, M.D.

16
17
18
19

Dated: November 30, 2012

O’MELVENY & MYERS, LLP

20
By: _____/s Meghan Woodsome1_____________
MEGHAN WOODSOME
Attorney for Plaintiff
GERALD S. RIGHETTI

21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned, Robert D. Sanford, attests under penalty of
perjury under the laws of the United Stated that I obtained the concurrence of Meghan
Woodsome in the filing of this Stipulation and that I have a record supporting this concurrence.
/s Robert D. Sanford
-2STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

SO ORDERED:

9

ER

R NIA

FO

dwa
Judge E

H

8

RT

7

hen

rd M. C

NO

6

IT

_______________________________________
The HonorableRED M. Chen,
E Edward
UNITEDRD
O O STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IS S

LI

5

UNIT
ED

4

12/4
Dated: ____________, 2012

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

3

S

2

A

1

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

SUPPLE & CANVEL, LLP
2320 Marinship Way, Sutie 301
Sausalito, CA 94965

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT