City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions et al

Filing 70

STIPULATION AND ORDER resetting deadline as to 66 MOTION to Dismiss. Replies due by 2/14/2018. Hearing remains schedules for 2/28/2018. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/07/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General ALEX G. TSE Acting United States Attorney JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director W. SCOTT SIMPSON (Va. Bar #27487) Senior Trial Counsel Department of Justice, Room 7210 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3495 Facsimile: (202) 616-8470 E-mail: scott.simpson@usdoj.gov COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS (See signature page for parties represented.) 11 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 15 16 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 17 Plaintiff, v. 18 19 No. 3:17-cv-04642-WHO STIPULATION AND ORDER JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., 20 21 WHEREAS, the Court entered an order on December 4, 2017, that required defendants to 22 file a response to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint no later than January 19, 2018, but did not 23 otherwise set a briefing schedule on any dispositive motion (Dkt. No. 60); 24 WHEREAS, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on 25 January 19, 2018 (Dkt. No. 66), and plaintiff filed its opposition on February 2, 2018 (Dkt. No. 26 67), such that defendants’ reply is currently due February 9, 2018, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 27 7-3(c); 28 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order No. 3:17-cv-04642-WHO 1 2 3 4 5 WHEREAS, because of the press of responsibilities in other cases, undersigned counsel for defendants requires a few additional days to prepare defendants’ reply; WHEREAS, given that oral argument in this case is scheduled for February 28, 2018, an extension of a few days in defendants’ reply date will not affect preparations for the argument; NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate that defendants’ reply in support of their 6 motion to dismiss shall be filed no later than February 14, 2018, and respectfully request that the 7 Court so order. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Respectfully submitted, DENNIS J. HERRERA (CA Bar #139669) City Attorney CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General JESSE C. SMITH (CA Bar #122517) Chief Assistant City Attorney ALEX G. TSE Acting United States Attorney RONALD P. FLYNN (CA Bar #184186) Chief Deputy City Attorney JOHN R. TYLER Assistant Director YVONNE R. MERÉ (CA Bar #173594) Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation /s/ W. Scott Simpson /s/ Aileen M. McGrath CHRISTINE VAN AKEN (CA Bar #241755) TARA M. STEELEY (CA Bar #231775) MOLLIE M. LEE (CA Bar #251404) SARA J. EISENBERG (CA Bar #269303) AILEEN M. McGRATH, (CA Bar #280846) Deputy City Attorneys City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4602 Telephone: (415) 554-4748 Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 E-Mail: brittany.feitelberg@sfgov.org 25 26 27 2 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order No. 5:17-cv-04642-WHO Attorneys, Department of Justice Civil Division, Room 7210 Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3495 Facsimile: (202) 616-8470 E-mail: scott.simpson@usdoj.gov COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States; ALAN R. HANSON, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 28 W. SCOTT SIMPSON (Va. Bar #27487) Senior Trial Counsel 1 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. February 7 Dated: __________________, 2018 3 ____________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order No. 5:17-cv-04642-WHO

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?