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

Filing 90

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 89 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONCERNING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Police Department, S et/Reset Deadlines as to 89 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONCERNING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, 86 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. Responses due by 8/6/2014. Replies due by 8/19/2014. Motion Hearing set for 9/11/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen.. Signed by Judge Edward M.Chen on 7/21/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2014)

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
CONCERNING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
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 CONCERNING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA

2
Whereas, on July 17, 2014, Defendants the City and County of San Francisco and the San
3
Francisco Police Department (collectively, “the City”) moved for a dismissal of plaintiffs’ Second
4
Amended Complaint;
5
Whereas the parties wish the motion to be heard on September 11, 2014;
6
Whereas the parties have agreed to a briefing schedule that will give each party adequate time
7
to brief the issues presented in the motion;
8
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among Plaintiffs and Defendants,
9
subject to approval of the Court, that:
10
1.

Plaintiffs will file any opposition to the motion by August 6, 2014;

2.

Defendants will file any reply by August 19, 2014.

11
12
SO STIPULATED:
13
14

Dated: July 17, 2014

15
16

By: /s/Tara M. Steeley
TARA M. STEELEY

17
18

Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, DAVID
CHIU, SCOTT WIENER and ANGELA CALVILLO
[in their official capacities]

19
20
21

Dated: July 17, 2014

22
23

Attorney for Plaintiffs
OXANE “GYPSY” TAUB and GEORGE DAVIS

25

27

D. GILL SPERLEIN, ESQ.
The Law Office Of D. Gill Sperlein
By: /s/** D. Gill Sperlein, Esq.
D. GILL SPERLEIN, ESQ.

24

26

DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
WAYNE SNODGRASS
TARA M. STEELEY
Deputy City Attorneys

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

28
STIPULATION/PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. C 12-5841-EMC

1

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Pursuant to the Stipulation, Plaintiffs will file any opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Second

2

Motion by August 19, 2014.

8

NO

9

RT

10

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

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

ER

H

11

R NIA

7/21/14

FO

Dated:

UNIT
ED

7

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

IT IS SO ORDERED:

6

S

5

LI

4

Amended Complaint (“Motion”) by August 6, 2014. Defendants will file any reply in support of the

12

A

3

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION/PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. C 12-5841-EMC

2

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