Jordan v. The Presidio Trust et al
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND re 32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER : Stipulated Request to Modify Briefing Schedule filed by The U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, Patricia Jordan, The Presidio Trust. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 9/21/16. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2016)
1 TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, ESQ. (No. 148213)
2 THIMESCH LAW OFFICES, PLC
158 Hilltop Crescent
3 Walnut Creek, CA 94576-3452
Direct: (925) 588-0401
4 Facsimile: (888) 210-8868
5 Attorney for Plaintiff PATRICIA JORDAN
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
7 Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
8 Assistant Branch Director, Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division
LISA ZEIDNER MARCUS (N.Y. Bar 4461679) - Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
10 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 7th Floor
11 Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-3336
12 Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
13 Attorneys for Defendants, PRESIDIO TRUST and THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21 PRESIDIO TRUST, and THE U.S. EQUAL
Case No. 16-cv-02122 KAW
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
CHANGING TIME TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND TO
MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2 of the Northern District of California,
plaintiff Patricia Jordan (“plaintiff”) and defendants the Presidio Trust and the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (collectively, “defendants”), by and through their
respective counsel, respectfully submit this stipulated request to: (1) extend the time for
defendant to respond to plaintiffs’ Complaint, and (2) modify the briefing schedule for
defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss as follows, as follows:
Defendants intend to respond to plaintiff’s Complaint by filing a motion to
dismiss. Under the current schedule, defendants’ response (motion) is due on September 16,
2016; plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is due two weeks later, on September 30, 2016; and
defendants’ reply is due the following week, on October 7, 2016;
The parties agree that the briefing schedule should be modified due to the
anticipated complexity of defendants’ forthcoming motion, which defendants represent will raise
jurisdictional issues and will also argue that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief
will be granted. The commentary to the Civil Local Rules instructs that the default two weeks
for an opposition and one week for a reply “are minimum time periods,” and that for “complex
motions,” such as the one that defendants anticipate filing here, “parties are encouraged to
stipulate or seek a Court order establishing a longer notice period with correspondingly longer
periods for response or reply.” Civil. L.R. 7-2 Commentary.
In addition, defendants represent that their motion must be reviewed by multiple
federal agencies before it can be filed, and additional time is needed due to the press of business.
Similarly, the press of business informs the parties’ agreement that the timeframes for the
opposition and the reply should be enlarged, since counsel for the parties must also continue their
work on other matters during the time allowed for the briefing here.
For these reasons, the parties request that the Court enter the following stipulated
briefing schedule: defendants’ motion to dismiss due by Monday, September 26; plaintiffs’
opposition due by Friday, November 4; defendants’ reply due by Thursday, Nov. 17.
The requested briefing schedule will alter the current deadline (of September 16)
for defendants’ response to the Complaint. One prior extensions of time has previously been
requested and granted; on August 30, 2016, the Court granted defendants’ request to extend the
deadline for responding to the Complaint. See ECF No. 30.
The requested time modification will not alter any other event or deadline. The
next case management conference in this case is scheduled for November 29, 2016 at 1:30pm,
and the parties are to file a Case Management Statement by November 22.
IT IS SO STIPULATED AND REQUESTED.
Dated: September 16, 2016
/s/ Timothy S. Thimesch
TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, ESQ.
THIMESCH LAW OFFICES
Attorneys for Plaintiff PATRICIA JORDAN
Dated: September 16, 2016
/s/ Lisa Zeidner Marcus
LISA ZEIDNER MARCUS 1
Counsel for Defendants
PRESIDIO TRUST; and THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED.
HON. KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I, Lisa Zeidner Marcus, hereby attest, in accordance with the Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the concurrence in
the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory listed here.
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?