San Francisco Baykeeper v. Taylor

Filing 9

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/24/2016. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2016)

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
REQUEST 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
REQUEST 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, on February 17, 2016, Plaintiff transmitted to Defendant a Request for Waiver of

3
4

the Service of Summons;
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2016, Plaintiff received Defendant’s executed waiver for service of

5
6

summons, and Plaintiff filed the executed waiver for service of summons;
WHEREAS, Defendant has chosen to proceed as a pro se litigant, and has not appeared in this

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

matter;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 4(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant
currently has until April 18, 2016 to respond to the complaint;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) have been working together
in good faith to reach a settlement agreement in this action;
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to extend the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint
until May 23, 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;

17

WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to extend the time for Defendant to

18

respond to the complaint to May 23, 2016, in order to give the Parties a chance to complete settlement

19

negotiations;

20
21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to approve and enter the Proposed
Order below.

22
23
24
25
26

DATE: March 24, 2016

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Nicole C. Sasaki
Nicole C. Sasaki
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

27
28

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3
4

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,
1. Defendant’s time to respond to the complaint shall be extended to May 23, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

March 24, 2016
Date: ____________________

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

_____________________________________
Honorable Maria-Elena James
United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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