San Francisco Baykeeper v. Taylor

Filing 14

AMENDED ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ASSOCIATED DEADLINES, AND TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT. (CORRECTS DATE OF CONTINUED CMC) Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/24/2016. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2016) Modified on 6/24/2016 (rmm2S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

George Torgun (Bar No. 222085)
Nicole C. Sasaki (Bar No. 298736)
SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

OAKLAND DIVISION

12
13
14

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, a non-profit
corporation,

15

Plaintiff,

16
17
18

v.
JAMES F. TAYLOR dba PINOLE RODEO
AUTO WRECKERS,

19
20

Defendant.

Civil No. 4:15-cv-05825-MEJ
THIRD REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
ASSOCIATED DEADLINES, AND TO
EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
(Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.)
Honorable Maria-Elena James

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THIRD REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT –
Civil No. 4:15-cv-05825-MEJ

WHEREAS, on December 18, 2015, Plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper (“Plaintiff”) filed the

1
2

above-entitled action;
WHEREAS, Defendant has chosen to proceed as a pro se litigant, and has not appeared in this

3
4
5
6
7

action;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) have been working together
in good faith to reach a settlement agreement in this action;
WHEREAS, pursuant to a second request by Plaintiff (Dkt. 10), the Court set the initial Case

8

Management Conference in this action for July 7, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., and continued other deadlines in

9

the case (Dkt. 11);

10
11

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to continue informal negotiations in good faith, and anticipate
reaching a final settlement in this action within the next eight (8) weeks;

12

WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to reschedule the Case Management

13

Conference for August 18, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., or at such later date that is convenient for the Court, in

14

order to give the Parties a chance to complete settlement negotiations without involving the resources

15

of the Court;

16

WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to reschedule the deadline to file the

17

Parties’ ADR certifications and stipulations to ADR process or notices of need for an ADR phone

18

conference no later than one week before the Case Management Conference;

19

WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to reschedule the deadline to file the

20

Parties’ Rule 26(f) Report and Joint Case Management Statement no later than one week before the

21

Case Management Conference;

22

WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to reschedule the deadline to file the

23

Parties’ initial disclosures or objections in their Rule 26(f) Report no later than one week before the

24

Case Management Conference;

25
26

WHEREAS, pursuant to a second request filed by Plaintiff (Dkt. 10), the Court extended
Defendant’s time to respond to the complaint to until July 11, 2016 (Dkt. 11);

27
28

THIRD REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT –
Civil No. 4:15-cv-05825-MEJ

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to extend the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint
until August 22, 2016;
WHEREAS, such an extension of time within which to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court Order;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to extend the time for Defendant to
respond to the complaint to August 22, 2016, in order to give the Parties a chance to complete
settlement negotiations;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to approve and enter the Proposed
Order below.
DATE: June 24, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,

11

/s/ Nicole C. Sasaki

12

Nicole C. Sasaki
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THIRD REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT -Civil No. 4:15-cv-05825-MEJ

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3
4
5

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,
July 25, 2016
1. The Case Management Conference shall be continued to ________________________
at 10:00 a.m.
2. The Parties’ ADR certifications and stipulations to ADR process or notices of need for

6

an ADR phone conference shall be filed no later than one week before the Case

7

Management Conference.

8
9
10
11
12
13

3. The Parties’ Rule 26(f) Report and Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no
later than one week before the Case Management Conference.
4. The Parties’ initial disclosures or objections in their Rule 26(f) Report shall be filed no
later than one week before the Case Management Conference.
5. Defendant’s time to respond to the complaint shall be extended to August 22, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

June 24, 2016
Date: ____________________

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

_____________________________________
Honorable Maria-Elena James
United States District Court

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

THIRD REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT -Civil No. 4:15-cv-05825-MEJ