Hightower et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 107

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 105 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEFENDANTS' TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Police Department. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/9/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137
Deputy City Attorney
TARA M. STEELEY, State Bar #231775
Deputy City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4602
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]

7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
AND SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

MITCH HIGHTOWER, OXANE “GYPSY”
TAUB, GEORGE DAVIS, RUSSELL MILLS,
RUSSELL “TREY” ALLEN and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. C 12-5841-EMC (NJV)
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO
RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION/PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. C 12-5841-EMC

n:\govern\li2012\130496\00809456.doc

1

STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

2
3
Plaintiffs Oxane “Gypsy” Taub and George Davis, and Defendants the City and County of San
4
Francisco and the San Francisco Police Department, through their respective counsel of record, hereby
5
stipulate as follows:
6
1.

On December 24, 2014, the Court filed its order granting in part, and denying, in part,

7
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Dkt No. 104].
8
2.

Defendants’ last day to respond to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint

9
(“Complaint”), following the Court’s December 24, 2014 order, is currently January 7, 2015.
10
3.

On or about January 6, 2015, Defendants’ lead counsel, Tara Steeley, suffered an

11
unexpected death in her family, requiring her to be out of the office and out of state to attend to family.
12
4.

In light of the foregoing, Defendants have requested, and Plaintiffs have agreed, that

13
subject to the approval of the Court, Defendants may have a 14-day extension of time to respond to the
14
Complaint, making Defendants’ response to the Complaint due on or before January 21, 2015.
15
5.

The requested extension of time to respond to the Complaint does not affect any

16
hearing or proceeding on the Court’s calendar.
17
SO STIPULATED:
18
19

Dated: January 7, 2015

20
21

DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
WAYNE SNODGRASS
TARA M. STEELEY
Deputy City Attorneys
By: /s/Wayne Snodgrass
WAYNE SNODGRASS

22
23

Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN
FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION/PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. C 12-5841-EMC

1

n:\govern\li2012\130496\00809456.doc

1

Dated: January 7, 2015

D. GILL SPERLEIN, ESQ.
The Law Office Of D. Gill Sperlein

2
By: /s/** D. Gill Sperlein, Esq.
D. GILL SPERLEIN, ESQ.

3
4

Attorney for Plaintiffs
OXANE “GYPSY” TAUB and GEORGE DAVIS

5
6

**pursuant to GO 45, the electronic signatory
has obtained approval from this signatory.

7
8
9

[PROPOSED] ORDER

10

San Francisco Police Department shall file their response to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on
or before January 21, 2015.

1/9/15

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

The Honorable Edward M. Chen
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
n
M. Che
Edward
Judge

16

RT

ER

H

18

FO

NO

17

19

R NIA

Dated:

20

A

15

LI

IT IS SO ORDERED:

14

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

13

S

12

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, Defendants City and County of San Francisco and the

UNIT
ED

11

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION/PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. C 12-5841-EMC

2

n:\govern\li2012\130496\00809456.doc