So et al v. Bay Area Rapid Transit et al

Filing 42

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 41 Stipulation.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2013)

Case4:12-cv-05671-DMR Document41 Filed08/20/13 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

is extended an additional two (2) days to August 22, 2013. Parties also stipulate Defendants’ time
to reply is extended two (2) days to September 5, 2013.

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 Document41 Filed08/20/13 Page2 of 3

1
2

Parties previously agreed to extend Plaintiffs’ due date for Opposition from August 12, 2013 to
August 20, 2013. Parties also previously agreed to extend Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’

3
Opposition from August 19, 2013 to September 3, 2013.
4
5
6
7
8
9

Good cause exists for additional time due to the unavailability of Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’
counsel was out of the country on pre-scheduled vacation from July 28, 2013 to August 11, 2013.
Thereafter Plaintiffs’ counsel has had depositions throughout California as well as other
commitments requiring her to be out of the area. Below reflects the new stipulation between
parties:

10
11

EVENT

12

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

CURRENT DATE
August 20, 2013

PROPOSED DATE
August 22, 2013

13
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
14
pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6)

15

Defendants’ Reply

16

September 3, 2013

September 5, 2013

17
18
19
20

Dated: August 20, 2013

21

PRICE AND ASSOCIATES
/s/ Pamela Y . Price

22

PAMELA Y. PRICE, Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23
24
25
Dated: August 20, 2013
26
27
28

2 40 2 .0 2 PX X X JW S

/s/ Dale A llen
DALE ALLEN, Attorneys for Defendants
BART

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

Case4:12-cv-05671-DMR Document41 Filed08/20/13 Page3 of 3

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

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

6
7

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

8
9

follows:

10
11

EVENT

12

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

CURRENT DATE
August 20, 2013

PROPOSED DATE
August 22, 2013

13
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
14
pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6)

15

Defendants’ Reply

16

September 3, 2013

September 5, 2013

17
18
19
20
21

August 21, 2013
Dated: ___________________

22
23

HON. DONNA M. RYU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24
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