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)

Download PDF
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?