Diehl v. Yu et al

Filing 7

STIPULATION AND ORDER Granting Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint re 5 Stipulation. The City's response to the complaint is now due on October 7, 2011. This extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by court order, as the initial case management conference in this matter is scheduled for November 18, 2011. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/8/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2011) Modified text on 9/9/2011 (ecg, COURT STAFF).

7

R NIA
LI

ER

J. Davila

FO

S

6

d w a rd
J u d ge E

A

H

5

RT

4

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

NO

3

UNIT
ED

2

RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (#88625)
NORA FRIMANN, Assistant City Attorney (#93249)
STEVEN B. DIPPELL, Sr. Deputy City Attorney (#121217)
KARL A. SANDOVAL, Sr. Deputy City Attorney (#170190)
Office of the City Attorney
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, California 95113-1905
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

C
F
D IS T IC T O
R
9/8/2011

Attorney for Defendants,
CITY OF SAN JOSE, RICK YU, NATHAN TRANG and JARROD NUNES

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSÉ DIVISION

9
10
11

CHARLES DIEHL,

12

NO. CV11-03777 EJD
Plaintiff,

13

STIPULATION RE: EXTENSION
OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT

v.

14

RICK YUU, NATHAN TRANG, SERGEANT
JARROD NUNES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

The undersigned, on behalf of their respective clients, herewith stipulate and agree

18
19

to the following:

20

1.

21

The City of San Jose (the “City) is the only defendant named herein that has

been served at this time;
2.

22

Plaintiff has agreed to a thirty-day extension of time for the City to respond to

23

the Plaintiff’s complaint, whether it be by motion or answer, pursuant to which the City’s

24

response to the complaint is now due on October 7, 2011; and,
3.

25

This extension will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already

26

fixed by court order, as the initial case management conference in this matter is scheduled

27

for November 18, 2011.

28

//
1
Stipulation re Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint

CV11-03777 EJD
789855

1

Dated: September 7, 2011

BOSKOVICH & APPLETON

2
______/s/ Anthony Boskovich_____
ANTHONY BOSKOVICH
Attorney at Law

3
4

Attorney for Plaintiff,
CHARLES DIEHL

5
6
7

Dated: September 7, 2011

8

RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney
By: ___/s/ Steven B. Dippell_______
STEVEN B. DIPPELL
Sr. Deputy City Attorney

9
10

Attorney for Defendant,
CITY OF SAN JOSE

11
12
13

ATTESTMENT OF CONCURRENCE PER GENERAL ORDER 45 FOR FILING:

14

I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document by the signatories, Steven B.

15

Dippell and Anthony Boskovich, has been obtained, and that a record of the concurrence

16

shall be maintained at the Office of the City Attorney.

17
18

Dated: September 7, 2011

By:___/s/ Steven B. Dippell_______
STEVEN B. DIPPELL

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Stipulation re Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint

CV11-03777 EJD
789855