Nelson et al v. Levy et al

Filing 30

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND ORDER. 1. Plaintiffs will have until August 29, 2016 to file their opposition to Jacobson's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant will have until September 12, 2016 to file a Reply. 2. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is continued to September 30, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 22, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 ABRAHAM M. GEORGE (Pro Hac Vice) New York State Bar No. 4272258 LAW OFFICE OF ABRAHAM GEORGE, P.C. 44 Wall Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: 212-498-9803
 Fax: 646-558-7533
 E-mail: abegeorgenyc@gmail.com 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 D. GILL SPERLEIN THE LAW OFFICE OF D. GILL SPERLEIN 345 Grove Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: 415-404-6615 Fax: 415-404-6616 E-mail: gill@sperleinlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Leslee A. Nelson et al and Nancy Barth UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ) LESLEE A. NELSON individually and as ) Trustee and Trustor of the LESLEE A. ) NELSON REVOCABLE TRUST and ) NANCY BARTH, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) RAYAH LEVY, JESSICA JACOBSON, ) RAYAH RACHEL LEVY INTERNATIONAL d/b/a “ARTEQUESTA” ) ) and “AGENTS OF HUMANITY IN THE FINE ARTS”, JOHN DOE and JANE DOES ) ) (1-10), ) ) Defendants. ) CASE №: 3:16-CV-3797 MMC STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER] Date: Sept. 23rd, 2016 Time: 9:00 Court Room: 7, 19th Floor 27 28 -1Leslee A. Neslon et al v. Rayah Levy, et. a 3:16-cv-3797 MMC STIPULATION WHEREAS, the Defendant Jessica Jacobson filed a motion to dismiss on August 8, 1 2 3 4 2016; WHEREAS the Court continued the time and date for oral argument on that motion for September 16, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Dkt. No. 24; 5 6 7 8 9 WHEREAS Defendant Jessica Jacobson Plaintiff filed a notice continuing the hearing to September 23, 2016. Dkt. No. 25; and WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant Jessica Jacobson’s motion to dismiss would have been due on August 22, 2016; 10 11 12 13 14 THEREFORE, the Parties do hereby STIPULATE as follows, Plaintiffs will have until August 29, 2016 to file their Opposition to Jacobson’s Motion to Dismiss. Defendants will have until September 12, 2016 to file a Reply. See August 22, 2016 Abe George Declaration. 15 16 Defendant Jacobson maintains that Plaintiffs do not meet Justice Chesney’s rules for an 17 enlargement of time, but for the sake of judicial economy and professional courtesy 18 nonetheless stipulates to the aforesaid schedule. See August 22, 2016 Abe George 19 Declaration. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2Leslee A. Neslon et al v. Rayah Levy, et. a 3:16-cv-3797 MMC STIPULATION 1 2 IT IS SO STIPULATED Dated: August 22, 2016 by: 3 4 5 6 7 8 /s/ Abe George, Esq. ________________________ Abraham M. George LAW OFFICES OF ABE GEORGE, ESQ. (pro hac vice pending) D. Gill Sperlein THE LAW OFFICE OF D. GILL SPERLEIN Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 10 11 12 13 /s/ Drew Winghart _______________________ Drew Winghart WINGHART LAW GROUP, INC. Attorney for Jessica Jacobson 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3Leslee A. Neslon et al v. Rayah Levy, et. a 3:16-cv-3797 MMC STIPULATION 1 2 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER Having considered the stipulation of the Parties and finding good cause therefore, IT 4 5 IS SO ORDERED: 6 1. Plaintiffs will have until August 29, 2016 to file their Opposition to Jacobson’s 7 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants will have until September 12, 2016 to file a 8 9 10 11 12 13 Reply. 2. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is continued to September 30, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. August 22, 2016 Dated: ___________ __________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4Leslee A. Neslon et al v. Rayah Levy, et. a 3:16-cv-3797 MMC STIPULATION

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?