Yousif v. San Mateo County Sheriff et al

Filing 47

ORDER GRANTING 46 DEFENDANTS STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE THE REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2016)

1
JOHN C. BEIERS, COUNTY COUNSEL (SBN 144282)
2

Aimee B. Armsby, Deputy (SBN 226967)
Rebecca B. Horton, Deputy (SBN 308052)

3

Hall of Justice and Records
400 County Center, 6th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendants
SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
SHERIFF GREG MUNKS
DEPUTY SHERIFF DENNIS LOUBAL
DEPUTY SHERIFF DEFRANCE MCLEMORE
DEPUTY SHERIFF CHRIS LAUGHLIN

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

OSMAN YOUSIF
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

vs.
SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF, SHERIFF GREG
MUNKS, DEPUTY SHERIFFS DENNIS LOUBAL,
CHRIS LAUGHLIN, DEFRANCE MCLEMORE,
CITY OF MENLO PARK, OFFICER CHRIS
ADAIR, and, DOES 1-100
Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-04887-WHA
DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATED REQUEST
FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
FILE THE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO
DISMISS
[Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) and Civil
L.R. 6-2]
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:

May 5, 2016
8:00 a.m.
Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Hon. William H. Alsup

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:15-cv-04887-WHA
DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE THE REPLY
TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

1

COMES NOW Defendants San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Greg Munks, Deputy

2

Sheriffs Dennis Loubal, Defrance McLemore, and Chris Laughlin, (collectively “County Defendants”)

3

through their attorney of record, hereby respectfully request an extension of two days to reply to

4

Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

5
6

1. Counsel for County Defendants have conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel and Menlo Park
Defendants’ counsel and there is no opposition to this request.

7

2. On October 22, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging various

8

claims for relief based on 42 U.S.C. 1983. (Doc. No. 1). On February 1, 2016, County Defendants

9

timely filed the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 23). On

10

February 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed, and the Court Granted, Plaintiff’s Notice of Substitution of Counsel.

11

(Doc. Nos. 25, 27). On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended

12

Complaint On or Before February 14, 2016, which the Court granted. (Doc. Nos. 29, 30). On February

13

16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File the Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 32).

14

The Court granted this Motion, giving leave to file the Amended Complaint on or before February 19,

15

2016. (Doc. No. 33). On February 23, 2016, the Court issued sua sponte an Order ordering the amended

16

pleadings due by February 26, 2016. (Doc. No. 34). On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Amended

17

Complaint. (Doc. No. 35). On February 29, 2016, the Court denied the previously filed Motion to

18

Dismiss without prejudice. (Doc. No. 36).

19

On February 11, 2016, County Defendants timely filed the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

20

Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 37). The Court corrected the

21

briefing schedule as to the Motions, ordering Plaintiff’s Opposition due by March 25, 2016. On March

22

28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Responses by April 1, 2016. (Doc. No. 41). The

23

Court granted the Motion in part, ordering Plaintiff to file his Opposition by “end of the day” of March

24

28, 2016. (Doc. No. 42). Plaintiff filed his Response to County Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on

25

March 28, 2016.

26

3. The relief requested herein is for good cause. The County Defendant is requesting the

27

extension of time for filing the Reply because of the extensions previously granted in the briefing

28

schedule resulting in an unforeseen conflict with County Defendant’s attorney’s planned time out of the
Case No. 3:15-cv-04887-WHA
-1DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE THE REPLY
TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

office.
4. The two-day extension in filing the Reply will not cause any undue delay in the
administration of this case. The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is set for May 5, 2016.
5. This is the first time that County Defendant has made no other requests for extensions of
time in this case.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, County Defendants respectfully move that the Court extend the time
for responding to Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss to April 7, 2016.

8
9
Dated: April 5, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

10
JOHN C. BEIERS, COUNTY COUNSEL

11
12

By:

13
14

/s/
Aimee Armsby, Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for Defendants
SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
SHERIFF GREG MUNKS
DEPUTY SHERIFF DENNIS LOUBAL
DEPUTY SHERIFF DEFRANCE LOUBAL
DEPUTY SHERIFF CHRIS LAUGHLIN

15
16
17
18

ORDER

19
20
21
22
23

It is hereby ORDERED the County Defendants Unopposed Motion for and Extension of time for
responding to Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted to April 7, 2016.
April 5, 2016.
DATED: _________________________

_____________________________________
The Honorable William A. Alsup

24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:15-cv-04887-WHA
-2DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE THE REPLY
TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS