Sran v. Regents of the University of California

Filing 26

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 25 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 23 MOTION to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [FRCP12(b)(6)] filed by Kulginder Sran. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 6, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Jay T. Jambeck (SBN 226018)
[e-mail]
Mandy G. Leigh (SBN 225748)
LEIGH LAW GROUP, P.C.
870 Market Street, Suite 1157
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
415-795-3733
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KULGINDER SRAN
MICHAEL D. BRUNO (SBN 166805)
[e-mail]
ALYSON S. CABRERA (SBN 222717)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER M. LYNCH (SBN 272976)
[e-mail]
GORDON & REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18

KULGINDER SRAN,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

vs.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, Dr. LINDA CENTORE, an
individual, Dr. DOROTHY PERRY, an
individual,
Defendants.

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

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-04471-JST
STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER
GRANTING EXTENSIONS OF TIME
FOR THE FILING OF AN
OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS

27
28

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR THE
FILING OF AN OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
(CASE NO. 3:15-cv-04471-JST)
1

1

THE PARTIES TO THIS MATTER, by and through their respective attorneys of record

2

herein, do hereby stipulate and agree that Plaintiff shall have a seven-day extension to file an

3

opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss certain portions of the First Amended Complaint

4

[D.E. 23]. If approved by the Court, Plaintiff’s opposition which is currently due April 14, 2016

5

will be due April 21, 2016.

6

The parties further agree that Defendants shall have a seven-day extension in which to file

7

their reply. If approved by the Court, Defendants’ reply which is currently due April 28, 2016

8

will be due May 5, 2016.

9

Plaintiff’s extension is necessitated due to the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel has a previously

10

scheduled vacation from April 7-14, 2016. Defendants have therefore requested a commensurate

11

extension.

12

The hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is set for June 9, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

13
14

DATED: APRIL 6, 2016

15

LEIGH LAW GROUP, P.C.

16

/s/ Jay T. Jambeck
_________________________________
Jay T. Jambeck
Attorney for Plaintiff

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

I, Jay T. Jambeck, hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any
signatures indicated by a "conformed" signature (/S/) within this efiled document.
DATED: APRIL 6, 2016

GORDON & REES SCULLY
MANSUKHANI LLP
/s/ Jennifer M. Lynch
_________________________________

25
26
27
28

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR THE
FILING OF AN OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
(CASE NO. 3:15-cv-04471-JST)
2

1
2

ORDER
The parties have submitted a Stipulation for an Order Granting Extensions of Time for the

3

Filing of an Opposition and Reply to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Stipulation”). Based

4

on the Stipulation of the parties, and for good cause shown, Plaintiff is granted an extension until

5

on or before April 21, 2016 to file an opposition to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

6

Defendants are granted a commensurate extension until on or before May 5, 2016 for the filing of

7

a reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss.

16

ER

Ti ga r

FO

n S.
J u d ge J o

H

15

RT

14

NO

13

VED

HON. JON S. TIGAR O
APPR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LI

12

Dated: April 6, 2016

UNIT
ED

11

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

10

S

9

R NIA

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A

8

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR THE
FILING OF AN OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
(CASE NO. 3:15-cv-04471-JST)
3