Baca v. Jeffers, et al

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 24 Stipulation GRANTING PLAINTIFF 21 DAY EXTENTION TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2013)

Case4:13-cv-02968-SBA Document24 Filed08/21/13 Page1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5

G. WHITNEY LEIGH (SBN 153457)
GONZALEZ & LEIGH LLP
744 Montgomery Street, Fifth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-912-5951
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DAVID O. BACA

6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

DAVID O. BACA,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Case No. C 13-02968 SBA
Plaintiff,

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT
OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL,
SERGEANT GRIMES, SERGEANT TRUE,
OFFICER B. RODGERS, OFFICER M.
WILSON, OFFICER C. RANDALL,
OFFICER B. JEFFERS, OFFICER B.
PHILLIPS, and DOES 1-10,

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 21
DAY EXTENTION TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 21-DAY EXTENSION
Case No. C 13-02968 SBA

Case4:13-cv-02968-SBA Document24 Filed08/21/13 Page2 of 3

1

On August 7, 2013, Defendants filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss

2

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in this action. Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Motion to

3

Dismiss is presently due on August 21, 2013.

4

Parties have agreed to stipulate to allow Plaintiff an additional twenty-one (21) days to

5

respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. A 21-day extension on Plaintiff’s time to respond

6

renders a due date of September 11, 2013. Defendants’ reply shall be due on or before

7

September 18, 2013. The current hearing date on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is set for

8

October 22, 2013. No dates will be affected and no party will be caused any prejudice by this

9

extension.

10

Good cause exists to grant such an extension because counsel for Plaintiff has been in

11

trial on an unrelated matter since August 12, 2013, after which Plaintiff expects to be occupied

12

with post-trial motion practice in that matter. Allowing Plaintiff an additional 21-day extension

13

to file his response is in the best interests of justice and economy.

14

Dated: August 21, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
GONZALEZ & LEIGH LLP

15
16

By: _/s/ G. Whitney Leigh___________________
G. Whitney Leigh
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DAVID O. BACA

17
18
19
20
21
22

Dated: August 21, 2013

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JOHN P. DEVINE
Supervising Attorney General

23
24
25

By:_/s/ Craig E. Modlin_____________________
Craig E. Modlin
Attorneys for Defendants

26
27
28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 21-DAY EXTENSION
Case No. C 13-02968 SBA

Case4:13-cv-02968-SBA Document24 Filed08/21/13 Page3 of 3

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Good cause appearing, and based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court grants

3

Plaintiff a twenty-one (21) day extension to file his response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

4

Plaintiff’s response is now due on or before September 11, 2013.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8
9

8/21/2013

Dated:__________________

___________________________________
Honorable Saundra B. Armstrong
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 21-DAY EXTENSION
Case No. C 13-02968 SBA