Local Search Association v. City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 51

STIPULATION AND ORDER, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 48 Corrected MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Responses due by 10/11/2011. Replies due by 11/1/2011.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/6/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2011)

Case4:11-cv-02776-SBA Document35

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Filed08/30/11 Page1 of 3

Donald M. Falk (SBN 150256)
[e-mail]
Edward D. Johnson (SBN 189475)
[e-mail]
Eugene Volokh (SBN 194464)
[e-mail]
Jason A. Wrubleski (SBN 251766)
[e-mail]
MAYER BROWN LLP
Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff
LOCAL SEARCH ASSOCIATION

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

OAKLAND DIVISION

13
14

LOCAL SEARCH ASSOCIATION,

CASE NO. C 11-2776 SBA

15
Plaintiff,
16
17
18
19

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO;
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; and
EDWIN M. LEE, in his official capacity as
MAYOR of the City and County of San
Francisco,

STIPULATED REQUEST TO ENTER
xxxxxxxxxxxxokok
[PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT
CASE NO. C 11-2776 SBA

Case4:11-cv-02776-SBA Document35

Filed08/30/11 Page2 of 3

1

STIPULATED REQUEST

2

Plaintiff Local Search Association (“LSA”) and Defendants City and County of San

3

Francisco, Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, and Edwin M. Lee

4

(collectively, “the City”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby agree and stipulate as

5

follows:

6

WHEREAS, on August 30, 2011, LSA shall file its Motion for Preliminary Injunction

7

alleging that San Francisco Ordinance No. 78-11 (the “Ordinance”) should be preliminarily

8

enjoined from taking effect; and

9

WHEREAS, given the legal and factual issues raised by LSA’s Motion for Preliminary

10

Injunction—including whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims, whether

11

irreparable injury is likely in the absence of injunctive relief, whether an injunction would serve

12

the public interest, and other matters—the parties believe they will need a longer briefing

13

schedule,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED between LSA and the City, with the
Court’s permission, that:
(1)

The City’s response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be filed

no later than October 11, 2011; and
(2)

Plaintiff LSA’s reply in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be

filed no later than November 1, 2011.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: August 30, 2011

DENNIS J. HERRERA
SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY

23
24

By:

25
26
27

/s/ Christine Van Aken_________
Christine Van Aken
Deputy City Attorney

Counsel for Defendants City and County of San
Francisco, Board of Supervisors of the City and
County of San Francisco, and Edwin M. Lee

28
2
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PI BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO. C 11-2776 SBA

Case4:11-cv-02776-SBA Document35

1

Dated: August 30, 2011

Filed08/30/11 Page3 of 3

MAYER BROWN LLP

2
By:

3

/s/ Jason A. Wrubleski
Jason A. Wrubleski

.

4
Counsel for Plaintiff Local Search Association
5
6
7

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B), Jason A. Wrubleski hereby
attests that the signatories’ concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained.

8
xxxxxxxxxxxx
[PROPOSED] ORDER

9
10

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

xxxxxx 9/6
Dated: August _____, 2011

____________________________________
HON. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PI BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO. C 11-2776 SBA