STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE FOR RULE 12 MOTIONS AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

WILLIAM H. ORICK, III, District Judge.

STIPULATION

Plaintiffs Jacob Mandel, Charles Volk, Liam Kern, Masha Merkulova, Aaron Parker, and Stephanie Rosekind ("Plaintiffs"); Defendants The Board of Trustees of California State University, San Francisco State University, Leslie Wong, Mary Ann Begley, Luoluo Hong, Lawrence Birello, Reginald Parson, Osvaldo del Valle, Kenneth Montreiro, Brian Stuart, Robert Nava, Mark Jaramilla, Vernon Piccinotti, and Shimina Harris ("CSU Defendants"); and Defendant Rabab Abdulhadi ("Abdulhadi", collectively with the CSU Defendants, "Defendants," and collectively with Plaintiffs and the CSU Defendants, "the Parties"), through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2:

Whereas the Court has scheduled a Case Management Conference for September 19, 2017;

Whereas Defendants have filed Rule 12 motions to dismiss the entirety of Plaintiffs' Complaint;

Whereas the Court has previously approved a briefing and hearing schedule for the CSU Defendants' motions, with a hearing set for Wednesday, November 8, 2017;

Whereas counsel for Plaintiffs have represented that Plaintiffs intend to amend their Complaint no later than Friday, September 1, 2017; and

Whereas lead counsel for the CSU Defendants will be traveling out of the country from September 17 through October 15, 2017,

Plaintiffs and Defendants agree to the following schedule for the briefing and hearing of any Rule 12 motions Defendants may file in response to the amended complaint; this proposed schedule is, other than with respect to the deadline for Defendants' Rule 12 motions with respect to the amended complaint, the same as the schedule previously approved by the Court:

The Parties also agree to continue the initial Case Management Conference ("CMC"), currently scheduled for September 19, 2017, to November 8, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., the same date of the hearing on the Rule 12 motions, subject to the availability of the Court. The Parties understand that the Court ordinarily holds CMCs on Tuesdays, but certain counsel for the Parties will be traveling to San Francisco for the hearing and CMC, including from the East Coast, and Plaintiffs and Defendants believe this would be the most efficient option for both the Court and the Parties' counsel.

Plaintiffs and the CSU Defendants previously requested an extension of time with respect to the filing and service of oppositions and replies with regard to Defendants' Rule 12 motions. [Dkt. No. 42.] The current request does not further extend those deadlines. The Parties have not previously requested a continuance of the CMC.

Because this action is still in the pleading stage and no dates have been set for the completion of discovery or trial, the requested schedule will not significantly affect the case schedule.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.