Bilbo v. County of Alameda, California et al

Filing 53

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 52 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANT WILLIAMS TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by John P. Williams, County of Alameda, California. Case Management Statement due by 9/11/2017. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/20/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 31, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Michael C. Wenzel, State Bar No. 215388
Jashoda K. Kashyap, State Bar No. 295391
BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, OSMAN & WENZEL
The Waterfront Building
2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
and JOHN P. WILLIAMS

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

PAMELA SAUCER BILBO,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA,
CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,
INSPECTOR JOHN P. WILLIAMS, and DOES
1-25,

18

Case No. 3:17-cv-00932-JST
STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND
DEFENDANT WILLIAMS TIME TO RESPOND
TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO
CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Defendants.

19
20
21

Hon. Jon S. Tigar

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff PAMELA SAUCER BILBO and Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (the
“COUNTY”) and JOHN P. WILLIAMS (“WILLIAMS”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby
represent to the Court as follows:
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint in the above captioned
matter.
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2017, the COUNTY filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.
1

STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND WILLIAMS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Case No.: 3:17-cv-00932-JST

1

WHEREAS, on April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

2

WHEREAS, on May 1, 2017, the COUNTY filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended

3

Complaint, contending that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the COUNTY. The COUNTY’s

4

motion is under submission and no hearing date is set for the motion

5
6

WHEREAS, on July 7, 2017, Plaintiff served her First Amended Complaint in the above
captioned action on Defendant WILLIAMS, requiring a response date of July 28, 2017.

7

WHEREAS, given that many of the legal arguments raised by the COUNTY in its motion to

8

dismiss overlap with legal arguments that would be asserted by WILLIAMS in his responsive pleading,

9

and because the COUNTY’s motion is pending, the parties respectfully request that WILLIAMS be

10

granted an extension to file his responsive pleading, such that his initial responsive pleading in this

11

matter will be due the later of two weeks from the date of issuance of the Court’s order on the

12

COUNTY’s pending Motion to Dismiss or, if leave to amend is granted, two weeks from the date of the

13

filing of a second amended complaint. The parties believe deferring WILLIAMS’ responsive pleading

14

until such time as an Order is received by this Court on the COUNTY’s pending motion to dismiss and,

15

if applicable, a second amended complaint is filed, will avoid duplication and a waste of judicial time and

16

resources.

17
18
19
20

WHEREAS, deferring the date for WILLIAMS’ responsive pleading will not alter the date of any
event or deadline already filed by the Court.
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2017, the case management conference (scheduled for July 12, 2017) was
continued to September 13, 2017.

21

WHEREAS, Michael Wenzel, lead trial counsel for the COUNTY and WILLIAMS, has a pre-

22

existing scheduling conflict on that date that requires him to be out of the Bay Area for a professional

23

obligation;

24
25

WHEREAS Plaintiff’s counsel has no objection to continuing the conference to another date that
is convenient for the Court.

26

WHEREAS the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the currently scheduled case

27

management conference from September 13, 2017 to September 20, 2017 or the next available date that

28

2

STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND WILLIAMS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Case No.: 3:17-cv-00932-JST

1

is convenient for the Court.

2

For the good cause reasons stated above, the parties hereby stipulate and agree that WILLIAMS’

3

responsive pleading in this matter will be due the later of two weeks from the date of issuance of the

4

Court’s order on the COUNTY’s pending Motion to Dismiss or, if leave to amend is granted, two weeks

5

from the date of the filing of a second amended complaint.

6

It is so stipulated and agreed.

7
8

Dated: July 27, 2017

BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT, OSMAN & WENZEL

9
10

By:

11
12
13
14

/s/Michael Wenzel
Michael C. Wenzel
Jashoda K. Kashyap
Attorneys for Defendants

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and JOHN P. WILLIAMS

Dated: July 27, 2017

LAW OFFICE RICHARD SAX

15
By:

16
17

PAMELA SAUCER BILBO

18

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION

19
20
21
22

/s/Richard Sax
Richard Sax
Attorneys for Plaintiff

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a
conformed signature (“/s/”) within this E-filed document or have been authorized by plaintiff’s counsel
to show their signature on this document as /s/.

23
24

Dated: July 27, 2017

By:

25

/s/Jashoda Kashyap
Jashoda K. Kashyap

26
27
28

[Proposed] ORDER
3

STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND WILLIAMS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Case No.: 3:17-cv-00932-JST

1

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, and the parties’ having stipulated to the same, the

2

parties’ stipulation is hereby APPROVED. The Court orders that WILLIAMS shall file a responsive

3

pleading by the later of two weeks from the date of issuance of the Court’s order on the COUNTY’s

4

pending Motion to Dismiss or, if leave to amend is granted, two weeks from the date of the filing of a

5

second amended complaint.

6
7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Initial Case Management Conference is continued to
September 20__________, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Dated: July 31, 2017

JON S. TIGAR
United States District Court Judge

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

4

STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND WILLIAMS’ TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO
CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Case No.: 3:17-cv-00932-JST