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)
jsupple@supplecanvel.com
ROBERT DEERING (#258043)
rdeering@supplecanvel.com
ROBERT D. SANFORD (#129790)
rsanford@supplecanvel.com
SUPPLE & CANVEL, LLP
2320 Marinship Way, Suite 301
Sausalito, CA 94965
Tel: (415) 366-5533
Fax: (415) 480-6301
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
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?