Ramirez Medina v. Asher
Filing
146
ORDER granting 145 Stipulated Motion to Extend Time for Defendants to Respond to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. Response deadline continued to July 10, 2019. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 146 Filed 06/05/19 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
DANIEL RAMIREZ MEDINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. C17-218 RSM-JPD
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND ORDER
STIPULATION
Pursuant to LCR 10(g), Defendants U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., and
Plaintiff Daniel Ramirez Medina (together, “the Parties”), hereby stipulate to seek an order of the
Court extending the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint
[ECF No. 140, filed May 30, 2019] by 4 weeks. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3), Defendants’
current response deadline is June 12, 2019. Under the Parties’ stipulation, Defendants’ new
response deadline would be July 10, 2019.
Good cause exists to extend Defendants’ deadline where counsel for Defendants’ were
preparing for a hearing on May 31, 2019, which was ultimately canceled late in the day on May
30, and are presently preparing for a Ninth Circuit oral argument on June 13, 2019, in an appeal
of the DACA-related case, Inland Empire-Immigrant Youth Collective v. Duke, 2017 WL
5900061 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017). Counsel for Defendants have additional filing deadlines as
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND ORDER
Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 146 Filed 06/05/19 Page 2 of 4
well as the upcoming July 4th holiday that further justify this requested 4-week extension to a
new response deadline of July 10, 2019.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 5th day of June 2019.
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND ORDER
Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 146 Filed 06/05/19 Page 3 of 4
DATED: June 4, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
JEFFREY S. ROBINS
Deputy Director
/s/ James J. Walker
JAMES J. WALKER
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
Office of Immigration Litigation
District Court Section
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Phone: (202) 532-4468
Fax: (202) 305-7000
Email: james.walker3@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
PUBLIC COUNSEL
MARK D. ROSENBAUM (CA SBN 59940),
pro hac vice
mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org
JUDY LONDON (CA SBN 149431), pro hac
vice
jlondon@publiccounsel.org
KATHRYN A. EIDMANN (CA SBN
268053), pro hac vice
keidmann@publiccounsel.org
610 South Ardmore Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90005
Telephone: (213) 385-2977
Facsimile: (213) 385-9089
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. (CA SBN
132099), pro hac vice
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
KATHERINE M. MARQUART (CA SBN
248043), pro hac vice
kmarquart@gibsondunn.com
/s/ Nathaniel L. Bach (with permission)
NATHANIEL L. BACH (CA SBN 246518),
pro hac vice
nbach@gibsondunn.com
333 South Grand Avenue
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND ORDER
Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 146 Filed 06/05/19 Page 4 of 4
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
ETHAN D. DETTMER (CA SBN 196046),
pro hac vice
edettmer@gibsondunn.com
555 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 393-8200
Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY (DC SBN 289330;
IL SBN 3122596), pro hac vice
echemerinsky@law.berkeley.edu
University of California, Berkeley School of
Law
*Affiliation for identification purposes only
215 Boalt Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
Telephone: (510) 642-6483
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS
TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND 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?