Myles v. Lew
Filing
7
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 6 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Jacob J. Lew. Case Management Statement due by 6/2/2016. Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/9/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 28, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2016)
1 Andrew H. Lee, State Bar No. 257403
LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW H. LEE
2 2021 The Alameda, Suite 310
San Jose, California 95126
3 Telephone: (408) 216-9898
Facsimile: (408) 216-9451
4
Attorney for Plaintiff
5
BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)
6 Acting United States Attorney
7 SARA WINSLOW (DCBN 457643)
Chief, Civil Division
8
ANN MARIE REDING (CABN 226864)
9 Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102-3495
Telephone: (415) 436-3618
FAX: (415) 436-6748
annie.reding@usdoj.gov
10
11
12
13 Attorneys for Defendant
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17
18
MARCELINE F. MYLES,
Plaintiff,
19
20
21
22
23
v.
JACOB J. LEW, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (U.S.
MINT),
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 3:16-cv-00239 JST
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CMC
3:16-cv-00239 JST
1
Plaintiff Marceline F. Myles (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Jacob J. Lew, Secretary, Department of
2
3 Treasury (U.S. Mint) (“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel, make the following
4 representations and stipulate and agree as follows:
1.
5
On January 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this Court. See Docket No. 1. On
6 January 14, 2016, the Court set this case for an April 13, 2016 initial case management conference. Dkt.
7 No. 3.
8
2.
On February 16, 2016, the U.S. Attorney’s Office was served with a copy of Plaintiff’s
9 Complaint. Defendant’s responsive pleading is due to be filed on or before April 18, 2016.
10
3.
In light of the fact that Defendant has not yet appeared in this action, and will not appear
11 until April 18, 2016, the parties jointly request that the Court continue the initial case management
12 conference and all related dates until June 1, 2016, or later. 1
13
4.
No prior extensions of time have been requested or granted.
14
5.
The requested time modifications will have no impact on the schedule for this case except
15 as outlined above.
16 DATED: March 28, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
17
___/s/ Andrew H. Lee_______________________
ANDREW H. LEE
Counsel for Plaintiff
18
19
DATED: March 28, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
20
BRIAN J. STRETCH
Acting United States Attorney
21
22
___/s/ Ann Marie Reding 2____________________
ANN MARIE REDING
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant
23
24
25
26
1
Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint, and that motion is
not likely to be heard until May 26, 2016. The parties are also agreeable to a case management
27 conference that coincides with a hearing on Defendant’s motion.
2
I, Ann Marie Reding, hereby attest that I obtained the concurrence in the filing of this
28
document of all signatories whose signatures are represented by /s/.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CMC
3:16-cv-00239 JST
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
3
Plaintiff and Defendant’s Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Initial Case Management
Conference is hereby GRANTED. The initial case management conference set for April 13, 2016 is
June 9, 2016
continued until June 1, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. A joint case management statement is due to be filed on May
5
June 2, 2016
25, 2016.
ISTRIC
6
ES D
TC
T
28
Date: March ___, 2016
TA
7
_______________________
JON S. TIGAR
8
United States District ERED
O ORD Judge
IT IS S
9
DIFIED
4
UNIT
ED
S
RT
U
O
ER
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CMC
3:16-cv-00239 JST
S . Ti ga r
LI
n
J u d ge J o
A
H
13
RT
12
NO
11
FO
10
R NIA
AS MO
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
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?