Karasek et al v. Regents of the University of California, The

Filing 61

AMENDED ORDER extending deadlines as to 57 MOTION to Dismiss. Response due by 5/31/2016. Reply due by 6/10/2016. Motion Hearing set for 6/22/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/25/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IRWIN M. ZALKIN, ESQ. (#89957)
DEVIN M. STOREY, ESQ. (#234271)
ALEXANDER S. ZALKIN, ESQ. (#280813)
RYAN M. COHEN. ESQ, (#261313)
The Zalkin Law Firm, P.C.
12555 High Bluff Drive, Suite 301
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12
13

SOFIE KARASEK, individually;
NICOLETTA COMMINS, individually;
ARYLE BUTLER, individually;
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18

vs.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA, a public entity, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.

19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No: 3:15-cv-03717-WHO
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S RULE
12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS;
AMENDED ORDER

Place: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3:15-cv-03717-WHO

1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(B)(6)
MOTION TO DISMISS; ORDER

1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(B)(6)

2

MOTION TO DISMISS

3
4
5
6
7
8

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, the parties to the above entitled action, by and through their
respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) in this Court on April
11, 2016;
WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintffs’ Third Amended
Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) on May 9, 2016;

9

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is due on May 23, 2016;

10

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that Plaintiffs may have an extension of 7 days to

11

respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which would make Plaintiffs’ response due on Tuesday,

12

May 31, 2016;

13

WHEREAS, currently, Defendant’s reply to Plaintiffs’ response is due on May 31, 2016;

14

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that Defendant’s new deadline to reply to Plaintiffs’

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss would be June 10, 2016;
WHEREAS, currently, the hearing date on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for
June 15, 2016;
WHEREAS, if, given the new briefing schedule, the original hearing date is not convenient
for the Court, the Court will move the hearing date to June 22, 2016; and
WHEREAS, this stipulation will not alter any other date of any event or any deadline
already fixed by Court order.

22

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiffs and Defendant, by and through their

23

undersigned attorneys, that Plaintiff shall have a 7-day extension to respond to Defendant’s Rule

24

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, making Plaintiffs’ response due

25

on or before May 31, 2016.

26
27
28

3:15-cv-03717-WHO

2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(B)(6)
MOTION TO DISMISS; ORDER

1

DATED: May 20, 2016

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
BRADLEY S. PHILLIPS
HAILYN J. CHEN

2
By:

3
4
5

DATED: May 20, 2016

THE ZALKIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
IRWIN M. ZALKIN
DEVIN M. STOREY
ALEXANDER S. ZALKIN
RYAN M. COHEN

6
7
8
By:

9
10
11

14
15
16
17
18

/s/ Alexander S. Zalkin
Alexander S. Zalkin
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

AMENDED ORDER

12
13

/s/ Jeslyn A. Everitt
Jeslyn A. Everitt
Attorneys for Defendant

Plaintiffs’ new response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is due on Tuesday, May 31,
2016;
Defendant’s new deadline to reply to Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
is due on June 10, 2016;
The hearing date on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for June 15, 2016; given
the new briefing schedule, the original hearing date is not convenient for the Court, the Court moves
the hearing date to June 22, 2016.

19
20

Dated: May 25, 2016

______________________________
Hon. William H. Orrick
Judge of the United States District Court

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3:15-cv-03717-WHO

3

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(B)(6)
MOTION TO DISMISS; ORDER