Kirola et al v. City & County of San Francisco, The et al

Filing 665

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 664 Stipulation Requesting Modification of Briefing Schedule on Defendant's Motion for Judgment or Class Decertification. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Guy B. Wallace, State Bar No. 176151
Mark T. Johnson, State Bar No. 76904
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
James C. Sturdevant, State Bar No. 94551
THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation
354 Pine Street, Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

OAKLAND DIVISION

17
18

IVANA KIROLA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

19
20
21

vs.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO (“the CITY”), et al.;

22
23

Defendants.

No. 4:07-CV-03685 SBA
CLASS ACTION
STIPULATION ON REQUEST FOR
MODIFICATION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE
ON DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO’S POST-TRIAL MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT OR CLASS
DECERTIFICATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION ON REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
KIROLA ET AL. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., CASE NO. 4:07-CV-03685 SBA

1
2

STIPULATION
WHEREAS, by its Order of April 29, 2014, (Dkt. No. 663), this Court found that further

3

motion practice is appropriate in the form of a proposed post-trial motion by defendant for

4

judgment or, in the alternative, class decertification, based on Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff

5

Ivana Kirola lacked standing to seek the relief sought;

6

WHEREAS, the Court directed the City to file its motion for judgment, or alternative, class

7

decertification by May 19,2014, Kirola to file her response by June 6, 2014 and the City to file its

8

reply by June 13, 2014;

9

WHEREAS, Counsel for the City and Class Counsel both face unanticipated changed

10

circumstances affecting their ability to adhere to the above-described briefing schedule, as

11

described below;

12

WHEREAS, Elaine O’Neil, one of the attorneys for the City having primary responsibility

13

for this case has been required to travel to Rochester, New York this month to fulfill unexpected

14

family obligations;

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

WHEREAS, Ms. O’Neil is also the attorney having primary responsibility for the
Respondent’s brief in Pear v. City and County of San Francisco, California Court of Appeal Case
No. H040600, due on May 19, 2014;
WHEREAS, Ms. O’Neill was also primarily responsible for supplemental briefing that the
Court of Appeal ordered in Corea v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. A136950 (1st
District), filed on May 14, 2014;
WHEREAS, as a result of the foregoing, Ms. O’Neil, who was expected to be a principal
author of the City’s motion for judgment or class decertification has been unavailable to work on
that motion, currently due on May 19, 2014;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have a current deadline of May 28, 2014 within which to file a reply
memorandum in support of a petition for review now pending before the California Supreme Court

26
in Carter v. City of Los Angeles, California Court of Appeal case No. B216004. Mark Johnson,
27
28
STIPULATION ON REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
KIROLA ET AL. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., CASE NO. 4:07-CV-03685 SBA
1

1

one of the primary attorneys responsible for this case for the Plaintiff Class is responsible for

2

preparing that brief;

3

WHEREAS, Mr. Johnson and Guy Wallace, who is also Class Counsel in this case and who

4

has primary responsibility for the case, filed an important ex parte motion in Willits v. City of Los

5

Angeles, Case No. CV 10-05782 CBM (RZx), for which substantial briefing on reply is due on

6

May 20, 2014;

7

WHEREAS, the parties met and conferred and agreed that a modification of the existing

8

briefing schedule along the lines proposed herein would address their competing caseload and

9

personal demands on their time described above and would benefit the Court by ensuring more

10

carefully-crafted, complete and thoughtful briefing of the issues presented by the City’s motion;

11

THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated, subject to the approval of the Court, that the briefing

12

schedule previously ordered by the Court be modified by a cumulative total of approximately

13

twelve (12) days, as follows:

14
15
16
17
18
19

Deadline

Current Date

Proposed Date

City’s Motion

May 19, 2015

May 27, 2014

Kirola’s Response

June 6, 2014

June 16, 2014

City’s Reply

June 13, 2014

June 25, 2014

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: May 15, 2014

20
21

SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
/s/
MARK JOHNSON
Counsel for Plaintiffs

22
23
24
25
26

Dated: May 15, 2014

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
/s/
_
JAMES M. EMERY
Counsel for Defendants

27
28
STIPULATION ON REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
KIROLA ET AL. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., CASE NO. 4:07-CV-03685 SBA
2

1
ORDER

2
3

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

4

briefing schedule on Defendant City and County of San Francisco’s Motion for Judgment or, in the

5

alternative, Class Decertification, as set forth in the Court’s Order re Further Proceedings dated

6

April 29, 2014 (Dkt. No. 663), is modified as follows:

7

1. The City shall file its motion for judgment or, alternatively, class decertification by May

8
27, 2014;
9
10

2. Kirola’s resposnes shall be filed by June 16, 2014;

11

3. The City’s reply shall be filed by June 25th 2014.

12

All other terms of the Court’s Order of April 29, 2014 are unchanged.

13

DATED: May 16 2014
__,

14
15

_______________________________________

16

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION ON REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
KIROLA ET AL. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., CASE NO. 4:07-CV-03685 SBA
3