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)
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?