Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Robertson v. Contra Costa County, 3:15-cv-02549-WHO. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160915d39 Visitors: 31
Filed: Sep. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND COUNTY DEFENDANTS' TIME TO FILE AN AMENDED ANSWER AND PLAINTIFF'S TIME FOR MOVING TO STRIKE THE OPERATIVE ANSWER WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . WHEREAS, Defendants Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Office of the Sherriff, and Contra Costa Health Services (collectively, "County Defendants") served their Answer to Plaintiff Randy David Ray Robertson's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 51, "Answer") on August 26, 2016; WHEREAS, Plaintiff Robertson's curre
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND COUNTY DEFENDANTS' TIME TO FILE AN AMENDED ANSWER AND PLAINTIFF'S TIME FOR MOVING TO STRIKE THE OPERATIVE ANSWER

WHEREAS, Defendants Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Office of the Sherriff, and Contra Costa Health Services (collectively, "County Defendants") served their Answer to Plaintiff Randy David Ray Robertson's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 51, "Answer") on August 26, 2016;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Robertson's current deadline for filing a motion to strike County Defendants' Answer under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f)(2) is September 16, 2016;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Robertson's counsel informed County Defendants' counsel that all of the affirmative defenses in the Answer are insufficiently pled or not affirmative defenses at all, and that Plaintiff Robertson intended to move to strike all affirmative defenses on these grounds;

WHEREAS, County Defendants agreed to file Amended Answer to Plaintiff Randy David Ray Robertson's First Amended Complaint ("Amended Answer") to attempt to avoid unnecessary law and motion work;

WHEREAS, County Defendants seek additional time to file an Amended Answer so that the parties can focus their resources on the upcoming October 4, 2016 settlement conference before the Hon. Judge Spero and possibly avoid unnecessary work in the event settlement is reached;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that County Defendants' may file an Amended Answer by October 14, 2016;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that Plaintiff Robertson does not waive his right to move to strike County Defendants' operative answer and the County Defendants do not waive their right to seek further leave to amend in response to any motion to strike the Amended Answer;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that Plaintiff Robertson's deadline to file a motion to strike County Defendants' operative answer under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f)(2) is extended to 21 days after County Defendants file an Amended Answer, or to November 4, 2016 in the event County Defendants do not file an Amended Answer;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Parties, through their respective counsel that:

• County Defendants' deadline to file an Amended Answer is extended to October 14, 2016; and • Plaintiff Robertson's deadline to file a motion to strike County Defendants' operative answer is extended to 21 days after County Defendants file an Amended Answer, or to November 4, 2016 in the event County Defendants do not file an Amended Answer.

ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the existing deadlines are extended as follows:

• County Defendants' deadline to file an Amended Answer is extended to October 14, 2016; and • Plaintiff Robertson's deadline to file a motion to strike County Defendants' operative answer is extended to 21 days after County Defendants file an Amended Answer, or to November 4, 2016 in the event County Defendants do not file an Amended Answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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