United States of America v. Real Property and Improvements Located at 2366 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, California

Filing 102

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 101 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER as to 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Terminating at Moot: 100 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 18, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2014) Modified on 4/18/2014 (wsn, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

FLYNN RILEY BAILEY & PASEK LLP
David B. Tillotson (No. 148162)
Ravi D. Sahae (No. 276113)
1010 B Street, Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94901
Fax [phone]
[phone]
Attorneys for Owner of Record
Nahla Droubi

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

Case No: CV 13-2027 JST

Plaintiff,

JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST
PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 FOR
ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO RESPOND
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [PROPOSED]
ORDER PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 712

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

vs.
REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATED AT 2366 SAN PABLO AVENUE,
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA,

Trial Date: None Set
Defendant.
________________________________________
NAHLA DROUBI,
Owner of Record.
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, all parties to this matter, by and through their respective

23

attorneys of record, hereby do stipulate and request that the deadline to oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for

24

Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) be extended by 21 days from April 28, 2014, to May 19, 2014, in

25

accordance with the Clerk’s notice (Docket #99) that the MSJ hearing has been continued 21 days.

26
27
28
1
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 FOR ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO
LOCAL RULE 7-12

1

The reason for the requested enlargement of time is to provide additional time given the

2

various outstanding issues in this action. There have been no prior modifications in this case.1 There

3

will be no prejudice to Plaintiff because Plaintiff’s reply will run from the new date pursuant to

4

Local Rule 7-3, and there is no prejudice to the Court because the Court will have the same amount

5

of time between the opposition deadline and the hearing that it would have had the hearing not been

6

continued by 21 days. This stipulation is without prejudice to the rights of any party to seek a

7

further enlargement of time.

8
9

Upon the filing of this stipulation, the pending Rule 6 Motion to Enlarge Time is withdrawn.
DATED:

April 17, 2014

FLYNN RILEY BAILEY & PASEK LLP

10
/s/ David Tillotson
David Tillotson
Attorneys for Owner of Record
Nahla Droubi

11
12
13
14
15

DATED:

April 17, 2014

HENRY G. WYKOWSKI & ASSOCIATES

16
/s/ Henry G. Wykowski
HENRY G. WYKOWSKI
Attorneys for Claimant
BERKELEY PATIENTS GROUP, INC.

17
18
19
20
21

DATED:

April 17, 2014

DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE

22
/s/ Tamar Todd
TAMAR TODD
Attorneys for Claimant
CITY OF BERKELEY

23
24
25
26

///

27
28

1

Owner filed a motion yesterday on April 16, 2014, seeking similar relief, but the motion has not been ruled
upon. Plaintiff contacted Owner on April 17 and graciously agreed to stipulate to the relief requested.

2
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 FOR ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO
LOCAL RULE 7-12

1

DATED:

April 17, 2014

SARA M. TAYLOR
Attorney at Law

2
3

/s/ Sara M. Taylor
Sara M. Taylor
Attorney for Claimants,
MARY DAVIS, ETIENNE FONTAN,
CINDY SMITH, JEFFREY BISHOP,
ROBIN BISHOP, GWENDOLYN
MCCALOPE

4
5
6
7
8
9

DATED:

April 17, 2014

MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney

10
11

/s/ Arvon J. Perteet
ARVON J. PERTEET
Assistant United States Attorney

12
13
14

16

[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

S

UNIT
ED

18

RT
U
O

17

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

_______________________________________
DERED
SO OR
JON S. TIGAR S
IT I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: April 18, 2014

19

R NIA

15

20

23
24

A

H

ER

. Ti ga r

LI

RT

22

nS
J u d ge J o

FO

NO

21

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

25
26
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 FOR ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO
LOCAL RULE 7-12