Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al
Filing
21
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 20 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 8 MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative Strike, Portions of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ENLARGING TIME FOR OPPOSITION AND REPLY filed by San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, London Breed, San Francisco Department of Public Works, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, City and County of San Francisco, Mohammed Nuru. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 15, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
RONALD P. FLYNN, State Bar #184186
Chief Deputy City Attorney
ELAINE M. O’NEIL, State Bar #142234
Deputy City Attorney
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, Suite 425
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
Telephone:
(415) 554-4708
Facsimile:
(415) 255-0733
E-Mail:
Ronald.Flynn@sfcityatty.org
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, SAN
FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, LONDON BREED, MOHAMMED NURU
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION, SAN
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, SAN
FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS, LONDON BREED, MOHAMMED
NURU, and DOES 1-100,
Case No. 3:17-cv-06763-JST
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
ENLARGING TIME FOR OPPOSITION AND
REPLY ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
STRIKE, PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
New Hearing Date:
Time:
Place:
February 8, 2018
2:00 p.m.
Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
Trial Date:
None Set
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
WHEREAS, On November 24, 2017, Defendants removed to this Court Plaintiff’s action
which was originally filed in San Francisco Superior Court. ECF 1;
WHEREAS, On December 1, 2017, counsel for Defendants, Ronald P. Flynn, filed a Motion to
27
Dismiss, or in the Alternative Strike, Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“Motion to
28
Dismiss”). ECF 8. The hearing was set for January 8, 2018;
Stipulation & Proposed Order
Case No. 3:17-cv-06763-JST
1
n:\constr\li2017\180435\01240595.docx
1
WHEREAS, On December 8, 2017, Johnny D. Knadler contacted Mr. Flynn and indicated that
2
he was being engaged as Plaintiff’s counsel on the matter and would seek a continuance of the hearing
3
and briefing schedule on the Motion to Dismiss. Defendants agreed that once Mr. Knadler appeared in
4
the case as counsel for Plaintiffs, we could come to an agreement on schedule;
5
WHEREAS, On December 11, 2017, Mr. Knadler filed a Notice of Appearance. ECF 13;
6
WHEREAS, On December 12, 2017, the Court issued an order vacating the hearing date
7
pending reassignment. ECF 15;
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2017, at the parties request, the Court set the new hearing for
8
9
10
February 8, 2018, and issued a Clerk’s Notice for the parties to submit a stipulation and order to
enlarge the briefing schedule should they wish to do so. ECF 18;
WHEREAS, having just been retained for the matter, and given his current schedule, counsel
11
12
for Plaintiff needs additional time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss until January 12, 2018;
13
WHEREAS, counsel for Defendants has obligations the week of Januay 15, 2018 and therefore
14
requested, and was granted by counsel Plaintiff, additional time until January 24, 2018 to file the reply
15
brief;
WHEREAS, no previous time modifications have been requested or granted in the case, and
16
17
given that the Initial Case Management Conference is set for March 28, 2018, and that the hearing on
18
this motion is set for February 8, 2018, this request for time modification will not impact the schedule
19
for the case;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate that they will adhere to the following
20
21
schedule for the oppositon and reply briefing of Defendants’ Motoin to Dismiss, and respectfully
22
request that the Court so order:
23
•
Janaury 12, 2018: Deadline for Plaintiff to file opposittion to Motion to Dismiss
24
•
January 24, 2018: Deadline for Defendants’ to file a reply in support of Motion to
Dismiss
25
26
//
27
//
28
//
Stipulation & Proposed Order
Case No. 3:17-cv-06763-JST
2
n:\constr\li2017\180435\01240595.docx
1
DATED: December 15, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
2
3
By: /S/ RONALD P. FLYNN
RONALD P. FLYNN
4
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL
5
6
7
DATED: December 15, 2017
JOHNNY D. KNADLER
Law Office of Johnny D. Knadler
8
9
By: /S/ JOHNNY D. KNADLER
JOHNNY D. KNADLER
Senior Trial Counsel
10
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation & Proposed Order
Case No. 3:17-cv-06763-JST
3
n:\constr\li2017\180435\01240595.docx
ATTESTATION OF SIGNATURES
1
2
I, RONALD P. FLYNN, hereby attest, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5-1(i)(3) of the Northern
3
District of California, that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each
4
signatory hereto.
5
/S/ RONALD P. FLYNN
RONALD P. FLYNN
6
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation & Proposed Order
Case No. 3:17-cv-06763-JST
4
n:\constr\li2017\180435\01240595.docx
ORDER
1
2
Based on the written stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, I find that
3
Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss shall be extended until
4
January 12, 2018. Defendants’ deadline to file a reply in support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss
5
shall be extended January 24, 2018.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
15
DATED: December _____, 2017
_____________________________
HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation & Proposed Order
Case No. 3:17-cv-06763-JST
5
n:\constr\li2017\180435\01240595.docx
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?