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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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