Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02413/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02413-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2801.02PYP-P201 -1-

STIPULATION AND ORDER (07-2413 JSW)

PAMELA Y. PRICE, ESQ. (STATE BAR NO. 107713)

PRICE AND ASSOCIATES

A Professional Law Corporation

The Latham Square Building

1611 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 1450

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 452-0292

Facsimile: (510) 452-5625

Attorneys for Plaintiff

M. HOPE YOUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

M. HOPE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALPHONSO JACKSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE U.S.

DEPT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT, MARC ROTHBERG,

GEORGE WEIDENFELLER, and FAYE

AUSTIN,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. C07-2413 JSW 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

ENLARGE TIME FOR OPPOSITION

TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

Plaintiff M. HOPE YOUNG and Defendants ALPHONSO JACKSON, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPT. OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT, MARC ROTHBERG, GEORGE WEIDENFELLER, and FAYE AUSTIN by

and through their respective counsel, agree that time for Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss may be enlarged up to and including November 16, 2007. Good cause exists

for this Stipulation and Order in that Plaintiff’s counsel’s is presently in trial in Solano County,

Case 3:07-cv-02413-JSW Document 25 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:07-cv-02413-JSW Document 26 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2801.02PYP-P201 -2-

STIPULATION AND ORDER (07-2413 JSW)

Fairfield, California, and is not available to prepare the opposition in accordance with the

briefing schedule set by the Court. Enlarging the time for the opposition will allow counsel for

the parties to meet and confer regarding the issues raised in the motion, and possibly obviate the

need for the opposition and hearing on the motion.

DATE: October 30, 2007 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

 /s/ 

JONATHAN U. LEE, Assistant United

States Attorney, Attorneys for Defendants 

DATE: October 30, 2007 PRICE AND ASSOCIATES

 /s/ 

PAMELA Y. PRICE, Attorneys for

Plaintiff M. HOPE YOUNG

ORDER

Pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation of the parties, and good cause

appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time for Plaintiff’s Opposition

to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss shall be enlarged up to and including

________________.

Dated: 

 

HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:07-cv-02413-JSW Document 25 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 2 of 2

November 16, 2007. The reply brief shall be due no later than November 26, 2007. October 31, 2007

Case 3:07-cv-02413-JSW Document 26 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 2