People With Disabilities Foundation v. Colvin

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 32 Stipulation Re Responsive Pleading and Briefing Schedule. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2016)

Download PDF
1 BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973) United States Attorney 2 SARA WINSLOW (DCBN 457643) 3 Chief, Civil Division 4 ANN MARIE REDING (CABN 226864) Assistant United States Attorney 5 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102-3495 6 Telephone: (415) 436-3618 FAX: (415) 436-6748 7 annie.reding@usdoj.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendant 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 15 16 17 18 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) CASE NO. 3:15-CV-02570-HSG STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE FOR RESPONSIVE PLEADING AND PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE 19 20 People with Disabilities, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner 21 of Social Security (“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel, make the following 22 representations and stipulate and agree as follows: 23 1. On June 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint in this action. See Dkt. 2. On the same date, counsel for Defendant requested a thirty-seven-day extension of time, 24 No. 30. 25 26 up to and including August 12, 2016, to respond to the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has 27 28 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 3:15-cv-02570-HSG 1 agreed to this request and Plaintiff’s counsel has also indicated that he will be unavailable from August 2 14, 2016 to August 29, 2016. 3 3. Based on the foregoing, the parties agree that should Defendant file a motion to dismiss 4 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff will have thirty-seven days to file an opposition, up to 5 and including September 19, 2016. The parties further agree that Defendant will have fourteen days to 6 file her reply, up to and including October 3, 2016. Defendant will notice her motion for an appropriate 7 hearing date based on this proposed briefing schedule. 8 4. The Court has allowed two prior extensions of time related to Defendant’s response to 9 Plaintiff’s original Complaint and the parties briefing schedule related to Defendant’s motion to dismiss 10 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 15, 21. 11 5. There are no dates set in this case. Accordingly, the requested time modification will have 12 not affect any date set by the Court. 13 14 DATED: June 24, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 15 17 ____/s/ Steven F. Bruce ______________ STEVEN F. BRUCE Attorney for Plaintiff People with Disabilities Foundation, Inc. 18 DATED: June 24, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 19 BRIAN J. STRETCH United States Attorney 16 20 ___/s/ Ann Marie Reding 1____________________ ANN MARIE REDING Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant 21 22 23 24 25 ORDER Plaintiff and Defendant’s Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Deadline for Defendant’s 26 27 1 I, Ann Marie Reding, hereby attest that I obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document of all signatories whose signatures are represented by /s/. 28 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 3:15-cv-02570-HSG 1 Responsive Pleading and Proposed Briefing Schedule is hereby GRANTED. Defendant shall file her 2 responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint on or before August 12, 2016. Plaintiff will file 3 its opposition by September 19, 2016, and Defendant shall file her reply by October 3, 2016. Defendant 4 will notice her motion for an appropriate hearing date, at least two weeks from the date the reply brief 5 will be filed. 6 Date: June 24, 2016 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Case No. 3:15-cv-02570-HSG _______________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge

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?