Bruzzone v. United States Attorney of Northern California District

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING 22 STIPULATION to Extend Reply Deadline Re 14 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Reset Deadline as to 14 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction : Replies due by 1/31/2023. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/18/2023. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
Case 4:22-cv-06412-HSG Document 23 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3 1 STEPHANIE M. HINDS (CABN 154284) United States Attorney 2 MICHELLE LO (NYRN 4325163) Chief, Civil Division 3 KELSEY J. HELLAND (CABN 298888) Assistant United States Attorney 4 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102-3495 5 Telephone: (415) 436-6488 FAX: (415) 436-7234 6 kelsey.helland@usdoj.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendant United States Attorney 8 for the Northern District of California 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 OAKLAND DIVISION 12 MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 16 Defendant. 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:22-cv-06412-HSG STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANT’S TIME TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS The Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIP. AND ORDER TO EXTEND MTD REPLY DEADLINE 4:22-CV-6412-HSG Case 4:22-cv-06412-HSG Document 23 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, the parties to this action hereby stipulate and request 1 2 that the Court extend by two weeks, to January 31, 2023, the time for Defendant United States Attorney 3 for the Northern District of California to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss. The parties request this change because Plaintiff filed his opposition brief one week late, on 4 5 January 17, 2023—the same day that Defendant’s reply would otherwise be due. See Dkt. Nos. 14, 21. 6 Additionally, counsel for Defendant has multiple other briefs due and hearings scheduled over the next 7 two weeks, and the requested extension would better accommodate counsel’s schedule. This is the parties’ first joint request to modify the schedule in this case. See Declaration of 8 9 Kelsey J. Helland (“Helland Decl.”) ¶ 4. Defendant previously filed an administrative motion to 10 continue the Initial Case Management Conference and related deadlines pending resolution of 11 Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss, see Dkt. No. 17, which the Court granted on January 14, 2023, 12 see Dkt. No. 20. The requested modification will not impact the schedule for the case because the 13 hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for April 27, 2023, nearly three months after 14 Defendant’s reply would be due under the requested modified schedule. Helland Decl. ¶ 5. 15 16 DATED: January 17, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 17 STEPHANIE M. HINDS United States Attorney 18 20 /s/ Kelsey J. Helland1 KELSEY J. HELLAND Assistant United States Attorney 21 Attorneys for Defendant 19 22 DATED: January 17, 2023 23 /s/ Michael Bruzzone MICHAEL BRUZZONE 24 25 Plaintiff Pro Se 26 27 28 1 In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(h)(3), the filer of this document attests under penalty of perjury that all signatories have concurred in the filing of this document. STIP. AND ORDER TO EXTEND MTD REPLY DEADLINE 4:22-CV-6412-HSG 1 Case 4:22-cv-06412-HSG Document 23 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3 ORDER 1 2 Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendant’s reply in support of its motion to 3 dismiss shall be due by January 31, 2023. 4 5 DATED: 1/18/2023 6 7 HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIP. AND ORDER TO EXTEND MTD REPLY DEADLINE 4:22-CV-6412-HSG 2

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?