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)

Download PDF
  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?