Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bunkley-v-Verber, CV-17-05797 WHO. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180108607 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING MOTION HEARING DATE AND ENLARGING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANTS' TIME TO REPLY WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Plaintiff JEFFREY BUNKLEY, by his attorney, Peter Goodman, and defendants NICHOLAS VERBER, RANDOLPH COUSENES and SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, by their attorney, John C. Beiers, County Counsel of San Mateo County, and Deputy County Counsel Karen Rosenthal, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING MOTION HEARING DATE AND ENLARGING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANTS' TIME TO REPLY

Plaintiff JEFFREY BUNKLEY, by his attorney, Peter Goodman, and defendants NICHOLAS VERBER, RANDOLPH COUSENES and SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, by their attorney, John C. Beiers, County Counsel of San Mateo County, and Deputy County Counsel Karen Rosenthal, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. On December 20, 2017, defendants filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to

Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities ("Motion) (Document 16) setting a hearing date of February 14, 2018.

2. Plaintiff's counsel represents the defendant in the matter of United States v. Marcus Felder, Docket No. CR-14-0536 MMC. A jury trial in that matter is scheduled to proceed on February 5, 2017. Plaintiff's counsel anticipates that the trial in the Felder case will take approximately two weeks to complete.

3. Plaintiff's counsel also needs additional time to file his response to the defendants' Motion, which was otherwise due on January 3, 2018, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.3(a) and Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Motion cites and discusses thirty-two federal cases and twelve California cases. Because the Motion was filed on December 20, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel had a total of eight working days to review the cited cases and file his response to the seven separate arguments raised in the Motion. That period of time has proved insufficient to the task of fashioning a response which addresses the issues Defendants have raised in their motion.

4. The parties have requested one prior continuance in this matter that was granted by the Court modifying the date of the Case Management Conference from January 9, 2018, to January 16, 2018. (Document 15.)

4. For the foregoing reasons, the parties stipulate and agree that the hearing on Defendants' Motion be continued from February 14, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., to March 7, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. The parties further stipulate and agree that the date for the filing of Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Motion be modified to January 30, 2018, and the date for the filing of Defendants' reply be modified to February 21, 2018.

SO STIPULATED

SO STIPULATED

ORDER CONTINUING MOTION HEARING DATE AND ENLARGING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANTS' TIME TO REPLY

Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which is currently scheduled for February 14, 2018, be continued to March 7, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time for Plaintiff to file his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is enlarged to January 30, 2018, and the time for Defendants to reply is enlarged to February 21, 2018.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer