Bunkley-v-Verber et al

Filing 31

ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' 16 MOTION TO DISMISS - Response due by 2/6/2018. Reply due by 2/13/2018. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 01/29/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2018)

1
2
3
4

PETER GOODMAN
Attorney at Law
State Bar No. 65975
819 Eddy Street
San Francisco, California 94109
Telephone: (4l5) 781-8866
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

5
6

Attorney for Plaintiff
JEFFREY BUNKLEY

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

JEFFREY BUNKLEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NICHOLAS VERBER, RANDOLPH
)
COUSENES, SAN MATEO COUNTY
)
SHERIFF’S OFFICE and DOES 1-50,
)
)
Defendants
)
)
_________________________________ )

CV-17-05797 WHO
STIPULATION AND ORDER ENLARGING
TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff JEFFREY BUNKLEY, by his attorney, Peter Goodman, and Defendants

19

NICHOLAS VERBER, RANDOLPH COUSENES and SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

20

OFFICE, by their attorney, John C. Beiers, County Counsel of San Mateo County, and

21

Deputy County Counsel Karen Rosenthal, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

22

1.

On December 20, 2017, Defendants filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to

23

Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Motion) (Document 16) setting a

24

hearing date of February 14, 2018.

25

2.

On January 5, 2018, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order requesting

26

that the hearing date on the Motion be continued to March 7, 2018, and that the date for

27

the filing of Plaintiff’s response to the Motion be enlarged to January 30, 2018, and the

28

date for the filings of Defendants’ reply be enlarged to February 21, 2018. (Document

1

20.) The Court issued an order granted the parties’ requests later the same day.

2

(Document 21.)

3

3.

The parties had requested one prior continuance in this matter that was

4

granted by the Court modifying the date of the Case Management Conference from

5

January 9, 2018, to January 16, 2018. (Document 15.)
4.

6

Plaintiff’s counsel is requesting an additional week to file his response to

7

the defendants’ Motion. The Defendants are not opposed to that request. The parties

8

therefore stipulate and agree that the time for the filing of Plaintiff’s response to the

9

Motion be enlarged from January 30, 2018, to February 6, 2018.

10

SO STIPULATED

11

DATED: January 26, 2018

12
/s/
PETER GOODMAN
Attorney for Plaintiff
JEFFREY BUNKLEY

13
14
15
SO STIPULATED
16
DATED:

January 26, 2018

17
JOHN C. BEIERS, COUNTY COUNSEL
18
19
By:

20
21
22
23

/s/
KAREN ROSENTHAL
Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant
NICHOLAS VERBER,
RANDOLPH COUSENES and
SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE

24
25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

-2-

1

ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

2
3

Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time for Plaintiff to file his response to

5

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is enlarged to February 6, 2018.

6

DATED: January 29, 2018

7
8
9

____________________________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-