So et al v. Bay Area Rapid Transit et al

Filing 40

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 39 Stipulation .(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013)

Case4:12-cv-05671-DMR Document39 Filed08/09/13 Page1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

PAMELA Y. PRICE, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 107713)
PRICE AND ASSOCIATES
A Professional Law Corporation
901 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
SIMONA A. FARRISE, LL.M (STATE BAR NO. 171708)
CARLA V. MINNARD, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 176015)
FARRISE FIRM, P.C.
901 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LANCE LAVERDURE and
MARGARET SO

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17

LANCE LAVERDURE and MARGARET SO,
Plaintiffs,

18
19

v.

20

BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT, CITY OF
OAKLAND, JEFF ISRAEL, et al.,

21
22

Defendants.
_____________________________________

23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 4:12-CV-05671 DMR
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
Date: October 10, 2013
Time: 11:00 am
Judge: Honorable Donna M. Ryu

IT IS STIPULATED by and between Plaintiffs LANCE LAVERDURE and MARGARET

24
25

SO (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants ANISA McNACK, Y. JOSEPH, ANDY ALKIRE, and MARK

26

MACAULAY (“Defendants”), through their respective counsel, that the time within which

27

Plaintiffs may file their Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6)

28

be extended from August 12, 2013 to and including August 20, 2013, or such other date as the
Court may order. The parties also stipulate that Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition be

2 40 2 .0 2 PX X X JW S

-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME – 12-CV-05671 DMR

Case4:12-cv-05671-DMR Document39 Filed08/09/13 Page2 of 3

1

extended from August 19, 2013 to September 3, 2013.

2
3
EVENT

4
5

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

6

PROPOSED DATE

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

7

CURRENT DATE

pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6)

August 12, 2013

August 20, 2013

August 19, 2013

September 3, 2013

8
Defendants’ Reply

9
10
11
12

Dated: August 9, 2013

PRICE AND ASSOCIATES

13
/s/ Pamela Y . Price

14
15

PAMELA Y. PRICE, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16
17
18
19

Dated: August 9, 2013

20

/s/ Arlene R osen
ARLENE ROSEN, Attorneys for Defendants

21

CITY OF OAKLAND

22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated: August 9, 2013

/s/ Kevin P. A llen

28
KEVIN P. ALLEN, Attorneys for Defendants
BART
2 40 2 .0 2 PX X X JW S

-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME – 12-CV-05671 DMR

Case4:12-cv-05671-DMR Document39 Filed08/09/13 Page3 of 3

1
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS

7
8

HEREBY ORDERED that the Court approves the Stipulation and proposed hearing dates as

9
10

follows:

11
12

EVENT

CURRENT DATE

PROPOSED DATE

13
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

August 12, 2013

August 20, 2013

August 19, 2013

September 3, 2013

14
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

15

pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6)

16
17

Defendants’ Reply

18
19
20
21
22

August 12, 2013
Dated: ___________________

23
24

HON. DONNA M. RYU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

25
26
27
28

2 40 2 .0 2 PX X X JW S

-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME – 12-CV-05671 DMR