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)
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?