UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
February 9, 2009
JULIE CHATTLER, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ; ORDER THE CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTIONS ACTION FILED: August 7, 2007
January 30, 2009, and Defendants United States of America and the United States Department of
WHEREAS Plaintiff's and Defendants' respective oppositions to the motions for summary judgment are due on February 13, 2009; judgment are due on February 20, 2009; March 6, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.; motions for summary judgment raise a host of complex legal and factual issues, including the application of the doctrine of prudential exhaustion, Defendants' interpretation of relevant regulations and Defendants' liability for refunds to class members, and that the briefings in opposition and in reply will require detailed legal analysis and the use of voluminous evidence; adequately the factual and legal issues involved;
6.2, and subject to approval by the Court, the parties stipulate to a one-week enlargement of time on the briefing as described below; stipulation and Court order, the re-scheduling of the Initial Case Management Conference from Management Conference from February 15, 2008 to April 11, 2008; and by stipulation and Court order, the shortening of time in the briefing on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike to be heard concurrently with Defendant's motion to dismiss on March 14, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.; motions for summary judgment only by one week, and will have no other impact on the schedule for this case;
WHEREAS Plaintiff Julia Chattler filed her partial motion for summary judgment on State filed their motion for summary judgment on January 30, 2009;
WHEREAS Plaintiff's and Defendants' respective replies to the motions for summary
WHEREAS the hearing on the respective motions for summary judgment is set for Friday,
WHEREAS Plaintiff requests this extension because it is Plaintiff's position that the
WHEREAS the current briefing schedule will not allow Plaintiff sufficient time to address
WHEREAS pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Local Rule 6.1(b) and
WHEREAS the only previous time modifications to the schedule in this case have been, by December 7, 2007 to January 18, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.; by Court order, continuing the Initial Case 23
WHEREAS this stipulation and order enlarging time will delay the Court's hearing on the
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants, subject to the approval of the Court that:
1. The deadline for the oppositions to Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is extended one week from February 13, 2009, to February 20, 2009;
2. The deadline for the replies to Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is extended one week from February 20, 2009, to February 27, 2009; and
3, The hearing on the Motions for Summary Judgment is extended one week from March 6, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. to March 13, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.
I, Shana E. Scarlett, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Jacqueline Coleman Snead has concurred in this filing.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.