Levin v. City and County of San Francisco

Filing 115

ORDER granting 111 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING ON RULE 60(B) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT filed by City and County of San Francisco . Set Deadlines as to 112 MOTION MOTION FOR INDICATIVE RULING ON RULE 60(B) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT . Responses due by 9/18/2015. Replies due by 9/25/2015. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 8/31/2015. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137
CHRISTINE VAN AKEN, State Bar #241755
Deputy City Attorneys
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
City Hall, Room 234
San Francisco, California 94102-4682
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

DANIEL LEVIN; MARIA LEVIN; PARK
LANE ASSOCIATES, L.P.; THE SAN
FRANCISCO APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION; and THE COALITION FOR
BETTER HOUSING,

15

Plaintiffs,

16

Case No. 14-cv-03352-CRB (JSC)
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON CITY & COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO’S MOTION FOR
INDICATIVE RULING ON RULE 60(B)
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

vs.
Trial Date:

17

October 6, 2014 (facial challenges)

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,

18
Defendant.
19
20
21
22

DAVID GREENE AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Defendants-Intervenors as to as-applied
claims only.

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 14-cv-03352-CRB (JSC)

c:\users\espino~1\appdata\local\temp\notes1a03dd\01042132.doc

1

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-2, the parties to the facial challenge in this case stipulate and

2

seek an order of the Court setting a briefing schedule on the City and County of San Francisco’s

3

Motion for Indicative Ruling on Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment.

4

The City will file its motion and supporting papers on or before August 28, 2015 and shall

5

notice the hearing on the motion for October 16, 2015. Plaintiffs shall file any opposition to the

6

motion no later than September 18, 2015. Plaintiffs’ counsel will be out of the country August 29

7

through September 7 and will be unavailable to file an opposition before then. The City shall file any

8

reply in support of the motion no later than September 25, 2015.

9
10
11

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: August 27, 2015

By:

**/s/J. David Breemer
J. David Breemer
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: August 27, 2015

By:

/s/Christine Van Aken
Christine Van Aken
Attorney for Defendant City & County of San
Francisco

12
13
14
15
16
17

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

18
19
20

ORDER

21
22
23

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: AUGUST 31, 2015
HON. CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 14-cv-03352-CRB (JSC)

1

c:\users\espino~1\appdata\local\temp\notes1a03dd\01042132.doc