Tudor et al v. United States Department of the Navy, et al
Filing
33
ORDER Granting 32 STIPULATION CONTINUING SCHEDULE ORDER DATES FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT. The Order also denies 31 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Amended Pleadings due by 4/19/2012. Motions due by 4/26/2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/26/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
JENNIFER J. CAPABIANCO (SBN 193371),
TODD A. DUPLANTY (SBN 211707),
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 979-0400
Facsimile: (415) 979-2099
jcapabianco@selmanbreitman.com
tduplanty@selmanbreitman.com
13
Of Counsel:
NEEL, HOOPER & BANES, P.C.
Bryant S. Banes
Federal ID No. 31149
Texas Bar No. 24035950
Bill W. Wooley
Federal ID No. 1144785
Texas State Bar No. 00795729
1800 West Loop South, Suite 1750
Houston, Texas 77027
(713) 629-1800
(713) 629-1812 (Fax)
E-Mail: bbanes@nhblaw.com
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7
9
10
LLP
Selman Breitman
8
11
12
RONNIE TUDOR
AT LAW
NEYS
ATTOR
15
16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
OAKLAND DISTRICT
19
CASE NO. C 11-5362 CW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULE
ORDER DATES FOR AMENDED
COMPLAINT
RONNIE B. TUDOR,
Plaintiff,
20
21
v.
22
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
NAVY, et al.,
Dept. : Courtroom 2
Judge : Hon. Claudia Wilken
23
Defendant.
24
25
26
On March 15, 2012, the Court issued an Order Re: Case Management Conference
27
that, among other things, continuing the case management conference in this action to June
28
27, 2012, which has since been stipulated and changed to July 18, 2012. The March 15,
246398.1 100.31906
1
CASE NO. C11-5362 CW
1
2012 Order also established dates by which: Plaintiff is to present Amended Complaint to
2
Defendant; Defendant is to stipulate to Amended Complaint or notify Plaintiff that it must
3
file Motion for Leave to Amend; and Plaintiff is to file Motion for Leave to Amend, if
4
necessary.
5
After further discussions between counsel and in order to allow Plaintiff proper time
6
to amend complaint and Defendant time to properly evaluate amended complaint, the
7
Parties have agreed to adjust and continue the scheduled deadlines contained in the March
8
15, 2012 Order by approximately two (2) weeks.
9
Accordingly, the parties HEREBY STIPULATE AND REQUEST that the
10
LLP
Selman Breitman
scheduling dates contained in the Court’s March 15, 2012 Order be revised to the
11
following:
12
By April 12, 2012, Plaintiff provide to Defendant proposed Amended Complaint;
13
By April 19, 2012, Defendant stipulate to Plaintiff filing Amended Complaint in
AT LAW
NEYS
ATTOR
14
which case Plaintiff must file Amended Complaint and Defendant answer in accordance
15
with the applicable rules or Defendant notify Plaintiff that Plaintiff must file Motion for
16
Leave to file Amended Complaint;
17
By April 26, 2012, Plaintiff shall file its Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, if
18
necessary.
19
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
246398.1 100.31906
2
CASE NO. C11-5362 CW
In light of Plaintiff's apparent intent to file an
amended complaint, Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint
is denied without prejudice. Docket No. 31. The motion to dismiss may be
refiled after the Court has determined the operative complaint, pursuant to the
parties' stipulated timeline.
DATED:
3/26/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?