Filed: Nov. 25, 2013
Latest Update: Nov. 25, 2013
Summary: AGENCY TO THE [] ORDER REGARDING THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN ANSWER RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge. Plaintiffs City of San Jose, City of San Jose as successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose, and the San Jose Diridon Development Authority ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and Allan H. Selig ("Defendants") (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on Octobe
Summary: AGENCY TO THE [] ORDER REGARDING THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN ANSWER RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge. Plaintiffs City of San Jose, City of San Jose as successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose, and the San Jose Diridon Development Authority ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and Allan H. Selig ("Defendants") (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on October..
More
AGENCY TO THE [] ORDER REGARDING THE DEADLINE FOR FILING AN ANSWER
RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.
Plaintiffs City of San Jose, City of San Jose as successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose, and the San Jose Diridon Development Authority ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and Allan H. Selig ("Defendants") (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2013, the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte issued an order granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss;
WHEREAS, the Parties and the Court had previously agreed to delay the deadline to file a Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Telephone Conference until 30 days after the Court ruled on any motion to dismiss (see Dkt. 34);
WHEREAS, the Parties separately agreed to delay Rule 26(a) disclosures until 30 days after the Court ruled on any motion to dismiss (see Dkt. 37);
WHEREAS, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A), the Defendants must currently file an answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint before these other deadlines;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it would be more efficient and orderly for the Parties to complete their initial disclosures and ADR filings before Defendants are required to file an answer;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by and between the Parties that the following schedule be set:
1. The deadline for Defendants to file an answer to Plaintiffs' complaint is extended until November 26, 2013.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
