Davis et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al
Filing
24
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 23 FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/7/15. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137
Deputy City Attorney
TARA M. STEELEY, State Bar #231775
Deputy City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4602
Telephone:
(415) 554-4655
Facsimile:
(415) 554-4699
E-Mail:
tara.steeley@sfgov.org
7
8
9
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
AND SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
GEORGE DAVIS and OXANE “GYPSY”
TAUB,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:15-cv-04336-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND SAN FRANCISCO POLICE
DEPARTMENT TO RESPOND TO THE
COMPLAINT
Hearing Date:
Time:
Place:
September 24, 2015
1:30 p.m.
Court Room 3, 17th Floor
Trial Date:
20
None set
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP./[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXT. TO RESPND
TO COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 3:15-cv-04336-RS
n:\govlit\li2015\160317\01051667.doc
1
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs George Davis and Oxane “Gypsy” Taub (“Plaintiffs”) served
2
Defendants City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Police Department (“Defendants”)
3
with their Complaint on September 23, 2015;
4
WHEREAS, Defendants’ response to the Complaint is due on or by October 14, 2015;
5
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants are currently pursuing settlement discussions that may
6
7
8
9
resolve this litigation;
WHEREAS, the resources of the parties and the Court would be wasted if Defendants pursue a
Motion to Dismiss while settlement negotiations are on-going;
WHEREAS, Defendants have requested and Plaintiffs have agreed to stipulate, pursuant to
10
Rule 6-1(b) of the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Northern District of
11
California, to an extension of 45 days for Defendants to respond to the Complaint.
12
NOW THEREFORE, Defendants City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Police
13
Department shall have a 45-day extension to respond to the Complaint in this action, making
14
Defendants’ response to the Complaint due on or by November 30, 2015.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
Dated: October 5, 2015
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
WAYNE SNODGRASS
TARA M. STEELEY
Deputy City Attorneys
By: /s/Tara M. Steeley
TARA M. STEELEY
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and SAN
FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP./[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXT. TO RESPND
TO COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 3:15-cv-04336-RS
1
n:\govlit\li2015\160317\01051667.doc
1
Dated: October 5, 2015
D. GILL SPERLEIN
The Law Office Of D. Gill Sperlein
2
3
By: /s/** D. Gill Sperlein.
D. GILL SPERLEIN
4
Attorney for Plaintiffs
GEORGE DAVIS and OXANE “GYPSY” TAUB
5
6
7
**pursuant to GO 45, the electronic signatory
has obtained approval from this signatory.
8
[PROPOSED] ORDER
9
10
11
12
Good cause appearing, the stipulation of the parties is adopted by the Order of this Court.
Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to Complaint is extended up to and including
November 30, 2015.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
Dated: 10/7/15
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP./[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXT. TO RESPND
TO COMPLAINT; CASE NO. 3:15-cv-04336-RS
2
n:\govlit\li2015\160317\01051667.doc
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?