Calderon et al v. Barbarino et al

Filing 36

ORDER GRANTING AS MODIFIED: 35 Stipulation to Extend Deadlines. Opposition due by 3/12/2013. Replies due by 3/22/2013. Motion Hearing set for 4/19/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 28, 2013. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2013)

Case3:12-cv-05819-JSW Document35 Filed02/28/13 Page1 of 5

1

5

BRANCART & BRANCART
Christopher Brancart (SBN 128475)
[e-mail]
Liza Cristol-Deman (SBN 190516)
[e-mail]
P.O. Box 686
Pescadero, CA 94060
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

6

Attorneys for All Plaintiffs Except LUNA

7

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GRABILL
David Grabill (SBN 46758)
[e-mail]
1930 Alderbrook Lane
Santa Rose, CA 95405
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE, INC.
Ilene J. Jacobs (SBN 126812)
[e-mail]
511 D Street
Post Office Box 2600
Marysville, CA 95901
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Attorney for Plaintiffs LUNA; Calderon,
Alvarez, Valenciano, Gutierrez, Cirigo,
and Garcia

Attorneys for Plaintiff LUNA Only

2
3
4

CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE
Jeffery Hoffman (SBN 118768)
[e-mail]
725 Farmers Lane, #10
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff LUNA Only

8
9
10
11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ESVIN CALDERON; IRMA CALDERON;)
et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GRAZIA BARBARINO; CORRADO
)
BARBARINO; MANUEL BARBARINO; )
and the CITY OF SAINT HELENA, a
)
California Municipal Corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. C 12-05819 JSW
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO THE
CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE
CITY’S REPLY AS MODIFIED
Hearing:
Date:
Time:
Place:

March 29, 2013 April 19, 2013
9:00 am
450 Golden Gate Ave.
Courtroom 11

22
23

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, the plaintiffs and defendant City of St. Helena, by

24

and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to a brief extension of the

25

deadlines for Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant City of St. Helena’s Motion to Dismiss,

26

and the City’s Reply to that Opposition. The parties seek an extension of seven days

27

for Plaintiffs’ Opposition, and an extension of three days for the City’s Reply. The new

28

deadline for Plaintiffs’ Opposition would be March 12, 2013. The new deadline for the

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO THE CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE CITY’S REPLY – CASE NO. C 12-05819 JSW
1

Case3:12-cv-05819-JSW Document35 Filed02/28/13 Page2 of 5

1

City’s reply to that Opposition would be March 22, 2013. The hearing is scheduled for

2

March 29, 2013. The motion at issue, and the extensions sought by way of this

3

stipulation, do not affect the other defendants in this case, Grazia, Corrado, and

4

Salvatore Barbarino.

5

There is good cause to extend the deadlines as requested.

6

First, this application is based on the stipulation of counsel.

7

Second, plaintiffs require additional time to brief their Opposition to the Motion,

8

which was filed at 4:59 pm on February 19, 2013. Since then, Plaintiffs have worked

9

diligently to research and brief the issues raised in the Motion, but require additional

10

time to complete the Opposition.
Third, the City is willing to grant Plaintiffs the professional courtesy of a

11
12

week-long extension of the deadline to file their Opposition to the City's Motion to

13

Dismiss. However, in order to accommodate a long-scheduled vacation that will limit

14

the City's availability to prepare the Reply between March 12 and March 19, should

15

Plaintiffs' extension be granted, Plaintiffs and the City agree that the City requires an

16

additional three days to complete its Reply.

17

Fourth, the requested extensions will not necessitate any changes to the Court’s

18

calendar, and they will not delay any proceedings in this case. If the Court grants this

19

request, the reply brief will be filed on or before March 22, 2013 – with a full week

20

remaining before the hearing on March 29, 2013.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO THE CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE CITY’S REPLY – CASE NO. C 12-05819 JSW
2

Case3:12-cv-05819-JSW Document35 Filed02/28/13 Page3 of 5

1

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs and defendant City of St. Helena hereby

2

request that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the City’s Motion

3

to Dismiss by seven days – to March 12, 2013 – and extend the deadline for

4

Defendant’s Reply to March 22, 2013.

5

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

6

Counsel filing this stipulation attests that all signatories below have approved this

7

document and consent to its filing.

8

Respectfully submitted,

9

BRANCART & BRANCART

10

Dated: February 28, 2013
/s/ Liza Cristol-Deman
Liza Cristol-Deman
Attorneys for All Plaintiffs Except LUNA

11
12

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GRABILL
13
Dated: February 28, 2013
14
15

/s/ David Grabill
David Grabill
Attorney for Plaintiffs LUNA; Calderon,
Alvarez, Valenciano, Gutierrez, Cirigo, and
Garcia

16
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
17
Dated: February 28, 2013
18

/s/ Ilene J. Jacobs
Ilene J. Jacobs
Jeffery Hoffman
Attorneys for LUNA Only

19
20

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP

21
22

Dated: February 28, 2013
/s/ Nicholas J. Muscolino
Nicholas J. Muscolino
Attorneys for Defendant City of St. Helena

23
24
25
///
26
///
27
///
28

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO THE CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE CITY’S REPLY – CASE NO. C 12-05819 JSW
3

Case3:12-cv-05819-JSW Document35 Filed02/28/13 Page4 of 5

1
2
3
4

PROPOSED ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The hearing date is CONTINUED
to April 19, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
Date: ____________________, 2013.
February 28

5
6

Hon. Jeffrey S. White
U.S. District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES FOR PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
TO THE CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE CITY’S REPLY – CASE NO. C 12-05819 JSW
4