Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Douglas v. Town Of Portola Valley

January 5, 2010

MICHAEL DOUGLAS, AN INDIVIDUAL; LISA DOUGLAS, AN INDIVIDUAL; MICHAEL DOUGLAS, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DOUGLAS FAMILY TRUST; LISA DOUGLAS, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DOUGLAS FAMILY TRUST, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY, A PUBLIC ENTITY; WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT; CHRISTOPHER BUJA, AN INDIVIDUAL; GEORGE MADER, AN INDIVIDUAL; LUIS MEJIA, AN INDIVIDUAL; SAUSAL CREEK ASSOCIATES; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles R. Breyer United States District Court Judge

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF BARBARA H. CHOI IN SUPPORT; [PROPOSED] ORDER [Civ. Local Rule 6-2; 7-12]

Plaintiffs, Michael and Lisa Douglas, as individuals and as Trustees of the Douglas Family Trust, 23 and Defendants Town of Portola Valley, George Mader, West Bay Sanitary District, Christopher Buja, 24 and Luis Mejia, parties to the above-entitled action by and through their attorneys of record, hereby 25 agree and stipulate to continue the following dates:

1. Case Management Conference from January 22 to March 26, 2010 (approximately 60 27 days);

2. Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint to occur 10 days after notice of the Court's ruling on Defendants Town of Portola Valley's and George Mader's Motion to Dismiss Complaint, or 20 days after Plaintiffs serve an amended pleading, if any.

order to adhere to this deadline, Defendants are required to meet and confer by January 4th and prepare initial disclosures by January 15th. With the exception of Defendants Town of Portola Valley and George Mader, who responded to the Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss, set for hearing on January 15, the other Defendants participating in this stipulation have an extension to respond to the Good cause exists to continue the Case Management Conference date of January 22, 2009. In Complaint. Based on the different agreements among the respective Defendants and Plaintiffs, and by court order, the various Defendants' responses to the Complaint are due on different dates between

December 18 and January 19. Continuing the Case Management Conference date for approximately 60 12 days, to March 26, 2009, would promote case efficiency and judicial economy. The parties would then have an opportunity to respond to the Complaint by way of an answer or motion, in which they could seek to dispose of some, if not all, of the legal issues posed in the Complaint before the Case Management Conference and related initial disclosures are due. If a particular Defendant chooses to respond by way of a motion to dismiss, such as Town of Portola Valley and George Mader have already done in this case, that Defendant can then await the Court's ruling on the motion or an amended complaint, if any, prior to incurring the expense of preparing initial disclosures. The Case Management Conference and its related requirements should thus be continued until after all Defendants have had a 20 chance to respond to the Complaint.

Good cause also exists to continue the remaining served Defendants' response date to a single uniform date to correspond to the pending ruling on Town of Portola Valley's and George Mader's

Motion to Dismiss. The arguments raised by these two Defendants may impact all parties to this action.

Depending on the Court's ruling on that motion, the federal law claims may be significantly curtailed, if not dismissed, limiting the issues to which the other Defendants may need to respond. Continuing the various Defendants' response dates until after the Court's notice of ruling on Defendant Town of Portola Valley's and George Mader's Motion to Dismiss, or service of an amended complaint, if any, thus furthers judicial economy. Plaintiffs acknowledge that coordinating the various Defendants' responses to a single deadline also promotes case efficiency. In addition, Plaintiffs are still in the process of serving Defendant Sausal Creek Associates, which is further reason why it would be judicially economical to extend the Case Management Conference date.

Good cause exists to: 1) continue the Case Management Conference date of January 22, 2009, to approximately 60 days, to March 26, 2009, and 2) continue the date to respond to the Complaint to those applicable Defendants to 10 days after notice of the Court's ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Town of Portola Valley and George Mader, or within 20 days of service of an amended pleading, as further supported in the Declaration of Barbara H. Choi below.

It Is So Stipulated by the parties below. This Stipulation will be signed in counterparts and copies thereof are considered as valid as the original.

ATCHISON, BARISONE, CONDOTTI & KOVACEVICH

Dated: December 17, 2009

BARBARA H. CHOI Attorneys for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.