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)
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?