Ballinger et al v. City of Oakland

Filing 19

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 17 Stipulation to Modify Briefing Schedule Re Docket No. 13 . (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney – SBN 069722 MARIA BEE, Chief Assistant City Attorney – SBN 167716 DAVID A. PEREDA, Special Counsel – SBN 237982 KEVIN P. McLAUGHLIN, Deputy City Attorney – SBN 251477 One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 238-2961, Fax: (510) 238-6500 Email: kmclaughlin@oaklandcityattorney.org X04620/2646728 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYNDSEY BALLINGER and SHARON BALLINGER, 12 Plaintiffs, v. 13 THE CITY OF OAKLAND, 14 Case No. 4:18-cv-07186-HSG STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. MCLAUGHLIN; [PROPOSED] ORDER Defendants. 15 [Civ. L. Rule 6-2] 16 17 Complaint Filed: November 29, 2018 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. MCLAUGHLIN; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE 2 RECITALS 3 1. Defendant City of Oakland and Plaintiffs Lyndsey Ballinger and Sharon Ballinger 4 have conferred regarding the briefing schedule on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ 5 Complaint (Dkt. 13) (the “Motion”). 6 2. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Motion is presently due on January 18, 2019. Plaintiffs 7 assert that an additional two weeks is needed to oppose the Motion because Plaintiffs’ counsel is 8 arguing another case in the U.S. Supreme Court on January 16, 2019. 9 3. Defendant’s reply in support of the Motion is presently due on January 25, 2019. 10 Defendant is willing to stipulate to Plaintiffs’ requested extension on condition that Plaintiffs agree 11 that Defendant may have an additional week to file its reply in support of the Motion, in fairness and 12 based upon the complexity of the issues presented. 13 14 15 STIPULATION WHEREFORE, the parties stipulate and agree to the following schedule for briefing the opposition and reply on the Motion: 16 Opposition: Due February 1, 2019. 17 Reply: Due February 15, 2019. 18 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 19 Dated: January 8, 2019 MERIEM L. HUBBARD J. DAVID BREEMER PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 20 21 By: /s/ Meriem L. Hubbard Attorneys for Plaintiffs LYNDSEY BALLINGER and SHARON BALLINGER 22 23 Dated: January 8, 2019 24 25 26 27 28 BARBARA J. PARKER, City Attorney MARIA BEE, Chief Assistant City Attorney DAVID A. PEREDA, Special Counsel KEVIN P. MCLAUGHLIN, Deputy City Attorney By: /s/ Kevin P. McLaughlin Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND 2 STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. MCLAUGHLIN; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. MCLAUGHLIN 2 I, KEVIN P. McLAUGHLIN, declare as follows: 3 1. I am a Deputy City Attorney employed by the City of Oakland, Defendant in this 4 action. The following facts are within my personal knowledge and, if called upon to testify, I 5 could and would testify competently with respect thereto, except as to those matters stated on 6 information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. 7 2. Defendant City of Oakland and Plaintiffs Lyndsey Ballinger and Sharon Ballinger 8 have conferred regarding the briefing schedule on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ 9 Complaint (Dkt. 13) (the “Motion”). 10 3. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Motion is presently due on January 18, 2019. Plaintiffs 11 assert that an additional two weeks is needed to oppose the Motion because Plaintiffs’ counsel is 12 arguing another case in the U.S. Supreme Court on January 16, 2019. 13 4. Defendant’s reply in support of the Motion is presently due on January 25, 2019. 14 Defendant is willing to stipulate to Plaintiffs’ requested extension on condition that Plaintiffs agree 15 that Defendant may have an additional week to file its reply in support of the Motion, in fairness and 16 based upon the complexity of the issues presented. 17 18 19 20 5. As a result, the parties have stipulated that Plaintiffs’ Opposition should be due on February 1, 2019, and Defendant’s Reply should be due on February 15, 2019. 6. The parties previously stipulated to allow Defendant until January 4, 2019 to file its response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. No other time modifications have occurred in this case. 21 7. The requested time modification will not alter the schedule for this case. 22 8. Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this 23 24 25 document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 8th day of January 2019, at Oakland, California. 26 27 By: /s/ Kevin P. McLaughlin Kevin P. McLaughlin 28 3 STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. MCLAUGHLIN; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER The Court, having considered the Stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing 3 therefor, hereby modifies the schedule for briefing the opposition and reply on Defendant’s Motion 4 to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Dkt. 13): 5 Opposition: Due February 1, 2019. 6 Reply: Due February 15, 2019. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 Dated: 1/9/2019 Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF KEVIN P. MCLAUGHLIN; [PROPOSED] ORDER

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?