IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 14, 2011
SCC ALAMEDA POINT, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF ALAMEDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY; COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, A PUBLIC BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC; ANN MARIE GALLANT, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Charles R. Breyer U.S. District Judge
DAVID B. NEWDORF, State Bar No. 172960 firstname.lastname@example.org 2 VICKI F. VAN FLEET, State Bar No. 164598 3 email@example.com NEWDORF LEGAL 4 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, California 94104-4238 Telephone: (415) 357-1234 6 Facsimile: (866) 954-8448 GEOFFREY L. ROBINSON, State Bar No. 112997 firstname.lastname@example.org 8 ALAN H. MURPHY, State Bar No. 262844 email@example.com 9 PERKINS COIE LLP 10 4 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4131 11 Telephone: (415) 344-7000 Facsimile: (415) 344-7050 12 13 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, and COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION 15 OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1. TAKING OFF CALENDAR ANN MARIE GALLANT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE [ANTI-SLAPP MOTION]; AND 2. WITHDRAWING SCC ALAMEDA POINT LLC'S MOTION TO PERMIT LIMITED DISCOVERY IN OPPOSITION TO GALLANT'S ANTI-SLAPP MOTION
The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, STIPULATE and AGREE as follows:
1. Ann Marie Gallant's Special Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint (anti- SLAPP [Doc. # 41]) now set for hearing on October 14, 2011 shall be taken offcalendar and continued pending the Court's ruling on Gallant's motion to dismiss pursuant Rule 12(b)(6) [Doc. #39] and motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) [Doc. # 40], set for hearing on October 14, as well as any subsequent pleading challenges to Plaintiff's cause of action against Defendant Gallant. All parties reserve the right to raise any arguments regardig the appropriateness and/or scope of discovery Plaintiff may request to oppose the anti-SLAPP motion if and when the anti-SLAPP motion is re-set for hearing.
2. Plaintiff's motions filed on September 7, 2011 [Doc. # 64 to 66] regarding discovery 220 Montgomery St. #1850 EGAL 13 L 1234 San Francisco, CA 94104 are withdrawn without prejudice.
3. The parties shall discuss a discovery plan for the case at the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) EWDORF (415) 357 conference among counsel. To the extent there are disagreements as to the discovery plan following this conference (including as to the appropriate scope and timing of depositions), the parties shall state their respective positions in the Joint Case Management Statement to be filed in advance of the initial Case Management Conference set for October 14, 2011.
STIPULATED AND AGREED:
Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.
ES DIST AT RICT
IT IS SO
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.