STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND DEFENDANT WILLIAMS TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

Plaintiff PAMELA SAUCER BILBO and Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA (the "COUNTY") and JOHN P. WILLIAMS ("WILLIAMS"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby represent to the Court as follows:

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint in the above captioned matter.

WHEREAS, on April 5, 2017, the COUNTY filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

WHEREAS, on April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

WHEREAS, on May 1, 2017, the COUNTY filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, contending that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the COUNTY. The COUNTY's motion is under submission and no hearing date is set for the motion

WHEREAS, on July 7, 2017, Plaintiff served her First Amended Complaint in the above captioned action on Defendant WILLIAMS, requiring a response date of July 28, 2017. WHEREAS, given that many of the legal arguments raised by the COUNTY in its motion to dismiss overlap with legal arguments that would be asserted by WILLIAMS in his responsive pleading, and because the COUNTY's motion is pending, the parties respectfully request that WILLIAMS be granted an extension to file his responsive pleading, such that his initial responsive pleading in this matter will be due the later of two weeks from the date of issuance of the Court's order on the COUNTY's pending Motion to Dismiss or, if leave to amend is granted, two weeks from the date of the filing of a second amended complaint. The parties believe deferring WILLIAMS' responsive pleading until such time as an Order is received by this Court on the COUNTY's pending motion to dismiss and, if applicable, a second amended complaint is filed, will avoid duplication and a waste of judicial time and resources.

WHEREAS, deferring the date for WILLIAMS' responsive pleading will not alter the date of any event or deadline already filed by the Court.

WHEREAS, on July 7, 2017, the case management conference (scheduled for July 12, 2017) was continued to September 13, 2017.

WHEREAS, Michael Wenzel, lead trial counsel for the COUNTY and WILLIAMS, has a pre-existing scheduling conflict on that date that requires him to be out of the Bay Area for a professional obligation;

WHEREAS Plaintiff's counsel has no objection to continuing the conference to another date that is convenient for the Court.

WHEREAS the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the currently scheduled case management conference from September 13, 2017 to September 20, 2017 or the next available date that is convenient for the Court.

For the good cause reasons stated above, the parties hereby stipulate and agree that WILLIAMS' responsive pleading in this matter will be due the later of two weeks from the date of issuance of the Court's order on the COUNTY's pending Motion to Dismiss or, if leave to amend is granted, two weeks from the date of the filing of a second amended complaint.

It is so stipulated and agreed.

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a conformed signature ("/s/") within this E-filed document or have been authorized by plaintiff's counsel to show their signature on this document as/s/.

[Proposed] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, and the parties' having stipulated to the same, the parties' stipulation is hereby APPROVED. The Court orders that WILLIAMS shall file a responsive pleading by the later of two weeks from the date of issuance of the Court's order on the COUNTY's pending Motion to Dismiss or, if leave to amend is granted, two weeks from the date of the filing of a second amended complaint.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Initial Case Management Conference is continued to September 20__, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.