United Energy Trading, LLC v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. et al
Filing
82
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE [#81] FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/11/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Holland & Knight LLP
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: 415.743.6900
Fax: 415.743.6910
11
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Charles L. Coleman, III (65496)
Tara S. Kaushik (230098)
Thomas D. Leland (Pro Hac)
Leah E. Capritta (Pro Hac)
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 743-6900
Fax: (415) 743-6910
E-mail: charles.coleman@hklaw.com
tara.kaushik@hklaw.com
thomas.leland@hklaw.com
leah.capritta@hklaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
COMPANY, a California corporation,;
)
ALBERT TORRES, an individual; BILL
)
CHEN, an individual; TANISHA ROBINSON, )
an individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 3:15-CV-2383
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS, CONTINUANCE OF
HEARING DATE, AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER [RULES 6-2 AND 7-7]
Judge:
Hon. Richard Seeborg
24
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, United Energy Trading, LLC, by and through its attorneys,
25
Holland & Knight, LLP, and the Defendants, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Albert Torres, Bill
26
Chen and Tanisha Robinson, by and through their attorneys Paul Hastings, LLP, and hereby file
27
their Stipulated Request for an Enlargement of Time to File Opposition and Reply Briefs Regarding
28
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE
CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383
1
2
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and continue the related hearing date. In support of the same, the
Parties state as follows:
3
4
5
On February 4, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to Plaintiff’s
underlying Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 79.)
6
Per Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to this Motion is due by February 18,
7
8
2016.
Per Local Rule 7-3(c), Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss is due
9
10
seven days from the filing of Plaintiff’s Opposition, and no later than February 25, 2016.
Holland & Knight LLP
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: 415.743.6900
Fax: 415.743.6910
11
12
The hearing date for this Motion to Dismiss is currently set for March 10, 2016. (Dkt. No.
79.)
13
Plaintiff and Defendants now file this stipulated request that the due dates for the Opposition
14
and Reply briefs, and the hearing date, be enlarged as follows:
15
That Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss now be due March 18,
16
17
18
19
20
21
2016;
That Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss be due fourteen (14) days
from the date Plaintiff’s Opposition is filed and no later than April 1, 2016;
That the hearing date be continued to April 21, 2016.
Both briefing enlargements are sought in advance of the expiration of either filing deadline,
22
23
24
pursuant to Local Rule 6-6(a).
The hearing continuance is sought before Plaintiff’s Opposition has been filed and before
25
the date that Opposition is due, currently February 18, 2016. It is thus properly requested under
26
Local Rule 7-7(a).
27
28
-2STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE
CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383
1
The Parties have previously submitted stipulated requests to extend the time for Defendants
2
to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint by two weeks and to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint by one
3
month.
4
The Parties have also previously jointly requested changes to the briefing schedule
5
6
7
8
regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all claims of Plaintiff’s original Complaint.
No other enlargements have been sought by the parties, and all of their joint requests have
been granted.
9
None of the sought enlargements will otherwise change the schedule of case.
10
Good cause exists for all enlargements sought herein because: (1) none prejudices any of the
Holland & Knight LLP
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: 415.743.6900
Fax: 415.743.6910
11
Parties or the Court, (2) both serve to maintain the thirty-five (35) day notice schedule contemplated
12
by Local Rule 7-2(a), and (3) both grant the Court more than the minimum amount of time to
13
14
review the briefing as contemplated by Rule 7-2.
15
THEREFORE, pursuant to Local Rules 6-2(a) and 7-7(a), the Parties respectfully file this
16
stipulated request that Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss now be due
17
March 18, 2016; that Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss be due fourteen (14)
18
19
days from the date Plaintiff’s Opposition is filed and no later than April 1, 2016; and that the
hearing on this matter be continued to April 21, 2016. The declaration of Thomas D. Leland,
20
21
22
23
required by Local Rule 6-2, is filed contemporaneously with this Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 11, 2016
By: /s/
Dated: February 11, 2016
Adam M. Reich
Counsel for Defendants
By: /s/
Thomas D. Leland
24
25
26
Thomas D. Leland
Counsel for Plaintiff
27
28
Adam M. Reich
-3STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE
CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ORDER
Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Case Schedule is
modified as follows:
Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is now due March 18,
2016.
Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss is due fourteen (14) days from the
date Plaintiff’s Opposition is filed and no later than April 1, 2016.
The date of the hearing on this Motion to Dismiss is now set for April 21, 2016.
9
10
Holland & Knight LLP
50 California Street, Suite 2800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: 415.743.6900
Fax: 415.743.6910
11
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
2/11/16
Dated: __________
_____________________________________________
13
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE
CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?