Rivera v. East Bay Municipal Utility District et al
Filing
82
STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Deadlines to 79 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Responses due by 1/8/2016. Replies due by 1/15/2016. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 12/21/2015. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
David M. Poore, SBN 192541
BROWN | POORE LLP
1350 Treat Blvd., Suite 420
Walnut Creek, California 94597
Telephone: (925) 943-1166
dpoore@bplegalgroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IVETTE RIVERA
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
IVETTE RIVERA,
Case No. C 15-00380
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
v.
16
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT, et al,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
EXTENDING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO
FILE AN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2016
TIME: 1:00 P.M.
COURTROOM 210
Defendants.
Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
1
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the parties to this action, Plaintiff IVETTE RIVERA and
2
Defendant EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (“EBMUD”), hereby stipulate to
3
extend the time for Plaintiff to file an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second
4
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 79) for a period of seven (7) days. Plaintiff’s Opposition is
5
presently due on January 1, 2016. The parties have agreed to extend the time for Plaintiff’s
6
Opposition until January 8, 2016, with the Reply extended an equal amount of time.
7
There exists good cause in which to grant this stipulation as (1) Defendant EBMUD filed
8
a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on December 18, 2015, with
9
Opposition due on January 1, 2016, (2) during the meet and confer process prior to filing the
10
motion, the parties stipulated to allow Plaintiff an additional seven days to file an Opposition to
11
the motion, as Plaintiff’s counsel will be unavailable during the Christmas week, with family in
12
town from Canada for the holiday, and (3) the extension of time should not interfere with the
13
Court’s docket, as the hearing date is not scheduled until February 10, 2016.
14
15
The parties are not making this request for the purpose of any undue delay, and no party
would suffer any prejudice if this stipulation was granted.
16
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties that Plaintiff be provided with an
17
extension of time of seven days until January 8, 2016 in which to file an Opposition to
18
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
19
SO STIPULATED.
20
Dated: December 18, 2015
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
21
//s// Zachary Shine
ZACHARY SHINE
Attorneys for Defendant EBMUD
22
23
24
Dated: December 18, 2015
BROWN | POORE LLP
25
26
_//s// David M. Poore _________________
DAVID M. POORE
Attorneys for Plaintiff IVETTE RIVERA
27
28
1
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
RIVERA V. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, CASE NO. C15-00380 SBA
1
2
CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) ATTESTATION
I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each
3
of the other signatories to this document.
4
DATED: December 18, 2015
5
By:
/s/David M. Poore
DAVID M. POORE
Attorney for Plaintiff
6
7
8
9
10
11
[PROPOSED] ORDER
12
13
14
15
16
GOOD CAUSE SHOWING, the Stipulation is GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiff to submit her Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is extended until January 8,
2016. The deadline to file a Reply shall be extended equally.
17
SO ORDERED.
18
19
21
Dated: December __, 2015
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
RIVERA V. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, CASE NO. C15-00380 SBA
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?