California Restaurant Association v. City of Emeryville

Filing 35

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 32 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Stipulation and proposed Order filed by Unite Here Local 2850, City of Emeryville. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 2, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

J. Leah Castella (SBN 205990)
E-mail: [e-mail]
Benjamin L. Stock (SBN 208774)
E-mail: [e-mail]
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612-3501
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

FILING FEE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE § 6103

Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF EMERYVILLE
Paul L. More (SBN 228589
E-mail: [e-mail]
McCRACKEN, STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY, LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Intervenor
UNITE HERE LOCAL 2850

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16

CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit
mutual benefit corporation,
Plaintiff,

17
18

v.

19

CITY OF EMERYVILLE, a California
municipal corporation,

20
21
22

Defendant,

Case No. 3:16-cv-06660-JST
STIPULATION EXTENDING PAGE LIMIT
FOR DEFENDANTS’ JOINT REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; PROPOSED
ORDER
Date:
Time:
Place:

March 23, 2017
2:00 p.m.
Courtroom 9 – 19th Floor

UNITE HERE LOCAL 2850, an
unincorporated association,
Intervenor-Defendant.

23
24
25

Plaintiff California Restaurant Association (“CRA”) and Defendants City of Emeryville

26

(“Emeryville”) and Unite Here Local 2850 (“Local 2850) (collectively, “the Parties”) hereby

27

stipulate and agree that: 1) Emeryville and Local 2850 may file a Joint Reply in Support of

28

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation set forth in

B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENS EN , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
OAKLA ND

OAK #4836-3113-5556 v2

-1-

STIPULATION EXTENDING PAGE LIMIT
FOR JOINT REPLY 3:16-cv-06660-JST

1

Civil Local Rule 7-4(b), but not to exceed thirty (30) pages in length; and 2) CRA may file a

2

Supplemental Reply by March 3, 2017 to address the Exhibits to the Declaration of Mr. Huber,

3

which were inadvertently omitted from the Huber Declaration when initially filed and served, and

4

are reflected in Emeryville’s Notice of Errata to Declaration of Wei-Ling Huber in Support of

5

City of Emeryville’s Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Document No. 28-1).

6

This Stipulation is made pursuant to Rules 7-3, 7-11, 7-12 of the United States District Court for

7

the Northern District California.
There is good cause for the Stipulation to extend the page limit on the grounds that this

8
9

case involves several numerous complex and novel legal issues. Emeryville and Local 2850 are

10

filing a Joint Reply, and require more than fifteen (15) pages to sufficiently address all the

11

arguments raised. As background, Emeryville’s points and authorities in support of its Motion to

12

Dismiss total twenty-five (25) pages. Local 2850 also filed a brief totaling twenty-four (24)

13

pages in support of the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Emeryville’s Motion to

14

Dismiss totals thirty-five (35) pages. The extended page limit will also serve the interests of

15

judicial economy and efficiency because there is overlap between the arguments advanced by

16

both Emeryville and Local 2850. Thus, filing one Joint Reply, rather than two separate briefs,

17

will decrease paperwork and will ultimately serve to narrow the issues in this case.
Because Emeryville and Local 2850 require more than 15 pages to sufficiently address all

18
19

arguments raised by CRA, the Parties therefore agree that Emeryville and Local 2850 may be

20

permitted 30 pages to respond to CRA’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The Parties also

21

agree that good cause exists for CRA to file a Supplemental Reply to address the Exhibits to the

22

Declaration of Mr. Huber, which are reflected in Emeryville’s Notice of Errata to Declaration of

23

Wei-Ling Huber in Support of City of Emeryville’s Opposition to Motion for Preliminary

24

Injunction. Good cause exists because the exhibits were inadvertently excluded from the initial

25

filing and service, and CRA did not receive the exhibits until the afternoon of February 28,

26

2017—the day its Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction was due.

27

///

28

///

B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENS EN , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
OAKLA ND

OAK #4836-3113-5556 v2

-2-

STIPULATION EXTENDING PAGE LIMIT
FOR JOINT REPLY 3:16-cv-06660-JST

1
2
3

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: February 28, 2017

weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin
law corporation

4
5

By: /s/ Lukas J. Clary
Lukas J. Clary
Attorneys for Plaintiff
California Restaurant Association

6
7
8

Dated: February 28, 2017

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP

9
By: /s/ J. Leah Castella
J. Leah Castella
Benjamin L. Stock
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF EMERYVILLE

10
11
12
13

Dated: February 28, 2017

McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry, LLP

14
By: /s/ Paul L. More
Paul L. More
Attorneys for Intervenor
UNITE HERE Local 2850

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENS EN , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
OAKLA ND

OAK #4836-3113-5556 v2

-3-

STIPULATION EXTENDING PAGE LIMIT
FOR JOINT REPLY 3:16-cv-06660-JST

1

PROPOSED ORDER

2

Defendants’ Motion for Extra Pages pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation is granted.

3

Emeryville and Local 2850 may file a Joint Reply up to 30 pages in support of motion to dismiss.

4
5
6

CRA may file a10-page supplemental reply in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
This supplemental reply is due by March 3, 2017.

7
8

March 2, 2017
Dated: __________________

____________________________________
Hon. Jon S. Tigar

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENS EN , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
OAKLA ND

OAK #4836-3113-5556 v2

-4-

STIPULATION EXTENDING PAGE LIMIT
FOR JOINT REPLY 3:16-cv-06660-JST