Young America's Foundation et al v. Napolitano et al

Filing 17

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DEADLINES. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, plaintiffs shall file their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss no later than August 11, 2017, and defendants shall file their reply no later than August 25, 2017. Due to the Court's schedule: (1) the hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss is continued to September 29, 2017; and (2) the Initial Case Management Conference is continued to October 27, 2017, and all related deadlines are continued in accordance therewith. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 06/30/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2017)

Download PDF
1 HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873) harmeet@dhillonlaw.com 2 KRISTA L. BAUGHMAN (SBN: 264600) kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com 3 GREGORY R. MICHAEL (SBN: 306814) 4 gmichael@dhillonlaw.com DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 5 177 Post Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, California 94108 6 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593 7 BRYAN H. HECKENLIVELY (SBN 279140) bryan.heckenlively@mto.com JESLYN A. EVERITT (SBN 274701) jeslyn.everitt@mto.com ELIZABETH A. KIM (SBN 295277) elizabeth.kim@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CHARLES F. ROBINSON (SBN 113197) charles.robinson@ucop.edu MARGARET L. WU (SBN 184167) margaret.wu@ucop.edu UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Office of the General Counsel 1111 Franklin Street, 8th Floor Oakland, CA 94607-5200 Telephone: (510) 987-9800 Facsimile: (510) 987-9757 9 10 11 12 13 Attorneys for Defendants 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 17 YOUNG AMERICA’S FOUNDATION, a Tennessee nonprofit corporation; and 18 BERKELEY COLLEGE REPUBLICANS, a student organization at the University of 19 California, Berkeley, 20 Plaintiffs, 21 v. 22 JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as President of UC; NICHOLAS B. 23 DIRKS, individually and in his official capacity as Chancellor of UC Berkeley; 24 STEPHEN C. SUTTON, individually and in his official capacity as Interim Vice 25 Chancellor of the Student Affairs Division of UC Berkeley; JOSEPH D. GREENWELL, 26 individually and in his official capacity as Associate Vice Chancellor and Dean 27 of Students of UC Berkeley; MARGO BENNETT, in her official capacity as Chief of 28 Police of UC Police Department, at Berkeley; Case No. 3:17-cv-02255-MMC STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DEADLINES Place: Courtroom 7, 19th Floor Judge: Maxine M. Chesney -1- 3:17-cv-02255 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING INITIAL CMC AND RELATED DEADLINES 1 ALEX YAO, individually and in his official capacity as Operations Division Captain of UC 2 Police Department, at Berkeley; and LEROY M. HARRIS, individually and in his official 3 capacity as Patrol Lieutenant of UC Police Department, at Berkeley, 4 Defendants. 5 6 7 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 8 In support of this Stipulation, the Parties state as follows: 9 WHEREAS, on April 27, 2017, Plaintiffs served the Complaint on Defendants; 10 WHEREAS, the Parties stipulated that Defendants’ deadline to respond to the Complaint 11 should be set for June 28, 2017; 12 WHEREAS, on June 28, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, 13 scheduled to be heard on August 25, 2017, and setting Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a response on 14 July 12, 2017, and Defendants’ deadline to file a reply on July 19, 2017; 15 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ counsel is unavailable to appear at the August 25, 2017 hearing on 16 Defendants’ motion to dismiss, as she will be traveling out of state; 17 WHEREAS, the Parties stipulate to continue the hearing on Defendants’ motion to 18 September 8, 2017, and to reset the briefing schedule whereby Plaintiffs’ response is due on 19 August 11, 2017, and Defendants’ reply is due on August 25, 2017. 20 WHEREAS, on June 29, 2017, the Court continued the Initial Case Management 21 Conference set for July 28, 2017, to September 29, 2017, along with corresponding deadlines to 22 meet and confer and file ADR Certifications by September 8, 2017, and to file a Rule 26(f) report, 23 complete initial disclosures, and file a case management statement by September 22, 2017; 24 WHEREAS, the September 4, 2017 Labor Day holiday falls on the week corresponding to 25 the Parties’ deadline to meet and confer and file ADR Certifications; 26 WHEREAS, the Parties stipulate and respectfully request that the Court continue the Initial 27 Case Management conference by one week to October 6, 2017, along with all corresponding 28 deadlines. -2- 3:17-cv-02255 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING INITIAL CMC AND RELATED DEADLINES 1 NOW THEREFORE, in light of the personal schedules of counsel, and the intervening 2 holidays, the parties therefore stipulate and respectfully request that the Court continue the 3 August 25, 2017 hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss by two weeks, reset the briefing 4 schedule as set forth below, and continue the September 29, 2017 initial case management 5 conference and related deadlines by one week. 6 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that, with the approval of the Court, the following schedule 7 should govern the case: 8 DATE EVENT 9 August 11, 2017 Plaintiffs’ deadline to file response to Motion to Dismiss 10 August 25, 2017 Defendants’ deadline to file reply to Plaintiffs’ response 11 September 8, 2017 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss at 9:00 a.m. 12 September 15, 2017 Last day to meet and confer regarding Rule 26 initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan; 13 File ADR Certification 14 File either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference 15 16 September 29, 2017 17 18 October 6, 2017 Last day to file Rule 26(f) report, complete initial disclosures or state objection in Rule 26(f) report and file Case Management Statement Initial Case Management Conference at 10:30 AM 19 20 Respectfully submitted, 21 DATED: June 30, 2017 DHILLON LAW GROUP, INC. 22 23 24 By: /s/ Harmeet K. Dhillon HARMEET K. DHILLON Attorneys for Plaintiffs 25 26 27 28 -3- 3:17-cv-02255 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING INITIAL CMC AND RELATED DEADLINES 1 DATED: June 30, 2017 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 2 By: /s/ Bryan H. Heckenlively BRYAN H. HECKENLIVELY Attorneys for Defendants 3 4 5 6 PROPOSED ORDER 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. with the following exceptions , due to the Court's schedule: 1. The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss is continued to September 29, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. 2. The Initial Case Management Conference is continued to October 27, 2017, and all related deadlines are continued in accordance therewith. June 30 DATED: ________________, 2017 14 15 16 17 Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- 3:17-cv-02255 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING INITIAL CMC AND RELATED DEADLINES 1 2 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i)(3) I, Bryan H. Heckenlively, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file 3 this document. I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained 4 from the signatories. 5 6 7 /s/ Bryan H. Heckenlively BRYAN H. HECKENLIVELY 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- 3:17-cv-02255 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND CONTINUING INITIAL CMC AND RELATED DEADLINES

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?