UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CHANGE TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS/SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; PROPOSED ORDER

JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

I, Bruce J. Highman hereby declare:

A. Background Facts re Attorneys, Parties, and Original and First Amended Complaints.

1. I currently am one of the attorneys of record for twelve of the plaintiffs in this case. Nine of these twelve plaintiffs have asked me to withdraw from representing them. Accordingly, on May 1 and 7, I filed requests to withdraw from representing them. On May 7, at the request of one other of the twelve plaintiffs I currently represent, Cesar Berrospi, I filed a request to dismiss him. The requests to withdraw and dismiss are pending. Attorneys Shannon Liss-Riordan and Monique Olivier (hereinafter collectively "Liss-Riordan") represent all but two of the plaintiffs in this case who I don't represent. Ms. Liss-Riordan also has filed Notices of Appearance for eight of the nine plaintiffs who have requested I withdraw and informs me that she will also shortly be filing a Notice of Appearance for the ninth of these plaintiffs, Cesar Berrospi, because he recently hired her. Therefore, because my requests to withdraw are pending, there are nine plaintiffs who are represented for now by both Ms. Liss-Riordan and me but who want only Ms. Liss-Riordan to represent them. The two plaintiffs who are not represented by either Ms. Liss-Riordan or me are Daniel Urbina Meza and Juan Peralta. They are in propria persona.

2. Maria Luna and Humberto Zaragoza (misnamed Humberto Zapata in caption of complaint) are the only two plaintiffs who I still represent who have not yet told me either to withdraw from representing them or to dismiss them. However, on May 8 and 9, 2014, Ms. Liss-Riordan informed me that she understands that she will soon be representing them also, that it is in progress.

3. I filed the original complaint in this case on behalf of 25 plaintiffs in San Francisco Superior Court. While the case was pending there, twelve of the plaintiffs discharged me and chose to represent themselves, and one plaintiff dismissed himself without prejudice. On April 2, 2014, the defendants removed this case to this court. On April 21, 2014, Ms. Liss-Riordan first filed a Notice of Appearance in this case. On April 28, 2014, Ms. Liss-Riordan filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on behalf of the plaintiffs she represents. Her FAC discards the legal theories I assert in the original complaint, and replaces them with a different legal theory. The original complaint still applies to the plaintiffs who are not represented by Ms. Liss-Riordan. Although not entirely clear to me, I assume only the FAC applies to the nine plaintiffs who are represented for now by both Ms. Liss-Riordan and me but who want only Ms. Liss-Riordan to represent them.

B. Request to Extend Time to File Opposition and Reply Papers to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment to Original Complaint.

4. On April 9, 2014, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for summary judgment (hereinafter "MJP/MSJ") to the original complaint. Defendants have renoticed the motion to July 11, 2014, from June 13, 2014. I am hereby moving to extend the time to file the opposition papers to the MJP/MSJ to June 20, 2014, and the reply papers to June 27, 2014. All counsel have agreed to this extension. If the Court grants it, the Court will still have all papers on the motion by fourteen days before the hearing.

5. There are two reasons why all counsel have agreed to continue the hearing date and the due date of the opposition and reply papers on defendants' MJP/MSJ to the original complaint. First, the MJP/MSJ is directed at the legal theories I assert in the original complaint. Defendants' attorney Tyler Brown has informed me that defendants are going to file a separate motion to dismiss the FAC directed at its different legal theory. All counsel agree that defendants' motion directed at the original complaint and defendants' motion directed at the FAC should be heard on the same date. To have both motions heard on June 13, defendants would have had to file their motion directed at the FAC by May 9 which was not feasible, especially since the FAC was filed on April 28. The first date after June 13 when all counsel and the Court are available is July 11.

6. The second reason why all counsel have agreed to continue the hearing date and the due date of the opposition and reply papers on the MJP/MSJ to the original complaint is because of my pending requests to withdraw or dismiss at the request of ten of the twelve plaintiffs I currently represent (see paragraph 1 above), and because Ms. Liss-Riordan informed me on May 8 and 9 that she also will soon be representing the two other plaintiffs who I represent. If Ms. Liss-Riordan does appear for those two plaintiffs, Maria Luna and Humberto Zaragoza, then I will ask the Court to withdraw from the entire case. Extending the time to file the opposition to the MJP/MSJ will allow time to see if all my clients switch to Ms. Liss-Riordan, and if so, for me to request to withdraw from the entire case, for the Court to rule on my requests to withdraw and to dismiss Hortensia Morales, and for me to file an opposition to the MJP/MSJ if it turns out that I will still be representing one or more plaintiffs.

7. There has been one previous extension of the time to file the opposition to the MJP/MSJ to the original complaint. The circumstances of that extension are as follows. This case was removed to this Court on April 2, 2014, and assigned to Magistrate Judge Spero. No discovery has been done. A week after removal, on April 9, 2014, the defendants filed their MJP/MSJ, which they noticed for hearing on May 16, 2014. On Thursday, April 10, 2014, I asked defendants' attorney Tyler Brown to agree to continue the hearing two weeks to May 30, 2014, and to allow the opposition papers to be filed on May 9, 2014, with defendants' reply papers to be filed on May 16, 2014. I wanted the continuance because I needed more time to prepare the opposition papers and to file a remand motion to be heard at the same time as the MJP/MSJ. On April 16, 2014, defendants renoticed the motion for hearing on May 30. Also, on April 16, I filed an unopposed motion to extend the time to file the opposition and reply papers to May 9 and May 16 respectively.

8. On April 22, 2014, this case was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Spero to Judge White. Because of this reassignment, the motion needed to be renoticed. On April 23, the motion was renoticed for June 13. Also on April 23, I filed an unopposed amended motion to extend the time to file the opposition papers in which I requested that plaintiffs have until May 13 to file the opposition. On April 24, 2014, the Court granted the motion, ordered that the opposition papers be filed by May 13, and that the reply papers be filed by May 20.

C. Request to Extend Time to File Motion to Dismiss FAC and to File Opposition and Reply Papers to this Motion to Dismiss FAC.

9. As mentioned above, the FAC was filed on April 28, 2014. Defendants' response to the FAC is due on May 12, 2014. As mentioned above, defendants plan to file a motion to dismiss the FAC. All counsel have agreed that defendants can have until May 23, 2014, to file the motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the FAC.

10. If the motion to dismiss the FAC is filed on May 23, the opposition would be due on June 6, 2014. As mentioned above, only the plaintiffs represented by Ms. Liss-Riordan are parties to the FAC. All counsel have agreed that they may have an extension to June 13, 2014 to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss the FAC, and that the reply to the opposition will be due on June 24, 2014. If this request is granted, the Court will still have all papers regarding this motion by 17 days before the hearing.

11. There have been no previous extensions of time to respond to the FAC or to file an opposition or reply re a motion to dismiss the FAC.

D. Other Factors

12. All counsel have agreed to the extensions of time sought by this motion. Because of the two in propria persona plaintiffs, Daniel Urbina Meza and Juan Peralta, it was not feasible to obtain the extensions by stipulation.

13. The parties do not believe the time modifications sought by this motion will affect the schedule for this case.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on May 9, 2014.

ORDER

The Motion to Change Time is hereby granted. Plaintiffs shall have until June 20, 2014, to file their opposition papers to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for summary judgment to the original complaint. Defendants shall have until June 27, 2014, to file their reply papers on this motion.

Defendants shall have until May 23, 2013, to file a response to the First Amended Complaint (FAC). If the response is a motion to dismiss the FAC, plaintiffs shall have until June 13, 2014, to file their opposition papers to the motion to dismiss. Defendants shall have until June 24, 2014 to file their reply papers on this motion.