Schock vs City of Lafayette

Filing 20

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAME. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/30/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

SHARON L. ANDERSON (SBN 94814)
County Counsel
NIMA E. SOHI (SBN 233199)
Deputy County Counsel
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
651 Pine Street, Ninth Floor
Martinez, California 94553
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, LAFAYETTE POLICE
CHIEF ERIC CHRISTENSEN,
LAFAYETTE POLICE OFFICER
STEVE HARRISON, AND LAFAYETTE
POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL MARSHALL

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15

MICHAEL SCHOCK,

16

Plaintiff,

17

v.

18

22

CITY OF LAFAYETTE; COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA; LAFAYETTE
POLICE CHIEF ERIC CHRISTENSEN,
individually and in his official capacity;
LAFAYETTE POLICE OFFICER
STEVE HARRISON, individually;
LAFAYETTE POLICE OFFICER
MICHAEL MARSHALL, individually;
and DOES 1 through 20,

23

Defendants.

19
20
21

24

No. C14-01902 RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
MOTION TO DISMISS AND REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF SAME
[Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2, 7-12]
Date:
Time:
Crtrm:
Judge:

September 4, 2014
1:30 p.m.
3, 17th Floor
Hon. Richard Seeborg, Presiding

Date Action Filed: April 24, 2014
Trial Date: None Assigned

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff MICHAEL SCHOCK, by

25

and through his attorney of record, Stan Casper of the Casper, Meadows, Schwartz & Cook

26

law firm, and Defendants COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CITY OF LAFAYETTE,

27

LAFAYETTE POLICE CHIEF ERIC CHRISTENSEN, LAFAYETTE POLICE OFFICER

28

STEVE HARRISON, and LAFAYETTE POLICE OFFICER MICHAEL MARSHALL

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAME – Case No. C14-01902 RS
1

1

(collectively “Defendants”), by and through their attorney of record, Deputy County Counsel

2

Nima E. Sohi of the Contra Costa County Counsel’s Office, hereby file this stipulated request

3

for an order extending the time for the parties to file opposition and reply briefs, in response to

4

and in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint, or

5

Alternatively, Stay the Action (Doc. No. 10), filed on June 16, 2014.
RECITALS

6

1.

7
8

On April 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of his civil

rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and the common law of the State of California.
2.

9

On June 16, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain claims in

10

Plaintiff’s complaint, or alternatively, stay the action. The motion to dismiss was originally

11

noticed for hearing before Magistrate Judge Cousins on July 23, 2014.
3.

12

On June 19, 2014, this action was reassigned to Judge Richard Seeborg. The

13

Court ordered that all pending motions must be re-noticed for hearing before the judge to

14

whom the case has been reassigned, but that briefing schedules shall remain unchanged.
4.

15
16

Pursuant to the Federal Rules and Local Rules, Plaintiff’s response to the motion

to dismiss was due on June 30, 2014, with Defendants’ reply due on July 7, 2014.
5.

17

On June 27, 2014, Defendants filed a re-notice of their motion to dismiss, per the

18

Court’s order, setting the hearing date on their motion to dismiss for September 4, 2014.

19

However, due to a misunderstanding, the filing deadlines were input as if the motion was

20

being filed that day, i.e., responses to the motion to dismiss due by July 11, 2014, with replies

21

due by July 18, 2014.
6.

22

The parties have stipulated and agreed that a response to the motion to dismiss

23

shall be due no later than July 7, 2014, with Defendants’ reply in support of said motion to

24

dismiss due no later than July 16, 2014. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a), in the

25

accompanying declaration of Nima E. Sohi, the parties attest that the requested extension of

26

time to respond to the motion to dismiss, and reply to said response, will not affect the current

27

case schedule nor alter the date of any other event or deadline already fixed by Court order.

28

///

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAME – Case No. C14-01902 RS
2

STIPULATION

1
2

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a), the parties hereby stipulate that the response of

3

Plaintiff Michael Schock to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims in Plaintiff’s

4

Complaint, or Alternatively Stay the Action, filed on June 16, 2014, will be due no later than

5

July 7, 2014, with Defendants’ reply due no later than July 16, 2014.

6
7

DATED: June 30, 2014

CASPER, MEADOWS, SCHWARTZ & COOK

8

By:

9
10

/s/
STAN CASPER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICHAEL SCHOCK

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DATED: June 30, 2014

SHARON L. ANDERSON, County Counsel
By:

/s/
NIMA E. SOHI
Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendants
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CITY OF
LAFAYETTE, LAFAYETTE POLICE
CHIEF ERIC CHRISTENSEN,
LAFAYETTE POLICE OFFICER STEVE
HARRISON, AND LAFAYETTE POLICE
OFFICER MICHAEL MARSHALL

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAME – Case No. C14-01902 RS
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Having considered the stipulation filed by the parties, and good cause appearing, the

3

Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Certain

4

Claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint, or Alternatively Stay the Action, shall be due no later than

5

July 7, 2014, with Defendants’ reply due no later than July 16, 2014.

6

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

DATED: ____________________
6/30/14

_________________________________
HON. RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Court Judge

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAME – Case No. C14-01902 RS
4