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)

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: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
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