Regents of University of California et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
Filing
83
ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS by Judge William Alsup granting (82) Stipulation in case 3:17-cv-05211-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:17-cv-05211-WHA, 3:17-cv-05235-WHA, 3:17-cv-05329-WHA, 3:17-cv-05380-WHA, 3:17-cv-05813-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
BRIAN STRETCH
United States Attorney
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JOHN. R. TYLER
Assistant Branch Director
BRAD P. ROSENBERG (DC Bar #467513)
Senior Trial Counsel
STEPHEN M. PEZZI (DC Bar #995500)
KATE BAILEY (MD. Bar #1601270001)
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-3374
Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
E-mail: brad.rosenberg@usdoj.gov
13
14
Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
18
19
REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA and JANET NAPOLITANO, in
her official capacity as President of the
University of California,
20
Plaintiffs,
21
22
23
24
25
26
No. 3:17-cv-05211-WHA
No. 3:17-cv-05235-WHA
No. 3:17-cv-05329-WHA
No. 3:17-cv-05380-WHA
No. 3:17-cv-05813-WHA
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY and ELAINE
DUKE, in her official capacity as Acting
Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security,
STIPULATION RE: BRIEFING
SCHEDULE RE: DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS
PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Defendants.
27
28
All DACA Cases (Nos. 17-5211, 17-5235, 17-5329, 17-5380, 17-5813)
STIPULATION RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: MOTION FOR STAY RE: MANDAMUS
STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
1
2
The parties agree, subject to the Court’s approval, to modify the briefing schedule for
3
Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Resolution of Petition for Writ of
4
Mandamus. In support thereof, the parties state as follows:
5
1. The United States intends to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United
6
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting that the Court of Appeals
7
direct this Court to vacate its Order issued on October 17, 2017, ECF No. 79, and to
8
stay discovery and further proceedings concerning the composition of the
9
administrative record pending a ruling on Defendants’ forthcoming motion to
10
dismiss. Defendants will apply for a writ of mandamus no later than Friday, October
11
20, 2017.1
12
2. On October 18, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to stay all proceedings in the related
13
DACA cases pending resolution of their forthcoming petition for a writ of mandamus.
14
3. In order to expedite the briefing schedule on Defendants’ motion to stay, the parties
15
have agreed to the following schedule:
16
a. Defendants’ motion and any supporting papers shall be filed by 9:00 p.m. on
17
October 18, 2017;
18
b. Plaintiffs agree to file their opposition and any supporting papers by 5:00 p.m.
19
on October 19, 2017; and
20
c. The parties have agreed to forego a hearing on Defendants’ motion to stay. If,
21
however, the Court wishes to hold a hearing, it will be noticed for Friday,
22
October 20, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.2
23
24
25
1
26
All dates and times in this Stipulation refer to the local time for this Court (Pacific Daylight
Time).
27
2
28
If the Court schedules a hearing, undersigned counsel for the Defendants requests that it take
place no sooner than 2:00 p.m. on Friday, October 20, in order to allow counsel, who is based in
Washington, DC, to make appropriate travel arrangements. Alternatively, undersigned counsel
for defendants requests the ability to appear telephonically.
All DACA Cases (Nos. 17-5211, 17-5235, 17-5329, 17-5380, 17-5813)
STIPULATION RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: MOTION FOR STAY RE: MANDAMUS
1
4. Undersigned counsel for plaintiff State of California has conferred with other
2
plaintiffs’ counsel in the related DACA cases, who have authorized him to file this
3
stipulation on behalf of all plaintiffs.
4
IT IS SO STIPULATED THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
/s/ James F. Zahradka II
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
BRIAN STRETCH
United States Attorney
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JOHN R. TYLER
Assistant Branch Director
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
/s/ Brad P. Rosenberg
BRAD P. ROSENBERG (DC Bar #467513)
Senior Trial Counsel
STEPHEN M. PEZZI (DC Bar #995500)
KATE BAILEY (MD. Bar #1601270001)
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 514-3374
Fax: (202) 616-8460
Email: brad.rosenberg@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
IT IS SO ORDERED THAT THE FOLLOWING BRIEFING SCHEDULE IS ADOPTED:
For Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Resolution of Petition for Writ
of Mandamus, the following briefing schedule is adopted:
28
All DACA Cases (Nos. 17-5211, 17-5235, 17-5329, 17-5380, 17-5813)
STIPULATION RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: MOTION FOR STAY RE: MANDAMUS
1
2
3
4
5
a. Defendants’ motion and any supporting papers shall be filed by 9:00 p.m. on
October 18, 2017; and
b. Plaintiffs’ opposition and any supporting papers shall be filed by 5:00 p.m. on
October 19, 2017.
The Court will decide the motion on the parties’ written submissions.
6
7
8
____________________________
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
October 19, 2017.
____________________________
DATE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
All DACA Cases (Nos. 17-5211, 17-5235, 17-5329, 17-5380, 17-5813)
STIPULATION RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE: MOTION FOR STAY RE: MANDAMUS
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?