Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04768/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04768-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARIA W. LEE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEE BUILDING 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-04768-HRL 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 64

Plaintiffs Maria Lee and Wen Lee, who are now represented by counsel, request an 

extension of time to file their opposition to defendants Retail Store Employee Building Corp.’s 

and Casa Del Pueblo Apartments’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the First Amended 

Complaint. Under the circumstances presented, this is a matter that reasonable counsel should 

have been able to resolve, and defendants’ opposition to the requested extension is not well taken. 

Nevertheless, this court is aware that plaintiffs’ counsel’s upcoming trial before Judge Koh has 

just been continued. Accordingly, plaintiffs will be given more time, but the court will require 

their opposition papers to be filed no later than June 23, 2016. Reply papers are due by June 30, 

2016. The motion hearing is continued to July 19, 2016, 10:00 a.m.

As for defendant Preservation Partners Management Group (PPMG), Maria and Wen Lee

state that they do not intend to oppose PPMG’s pending summary judgment motion and are 

Case 5:15-cv-04768-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

inclined to dismiss PPMG without prejudice. Because PPMG has filed both an answer and a 

summary judgment motion, at this point, plaintiffs can dismiss PPMG only through (1) a 

stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared in the action or (2) a court order. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(a)(1), (2). Accordingly, within 10 days from the date of this order, plaintiffs shall file 

either a stipulated dismissal or a request for dismissal and proposed order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04768-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:15-cv-04768-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Annette D. Kirkham annettek@lawfoundation.org, teresam@lawfoundation.org

David Rush Tredway dtredway@kennicklaw.com

Jeff Brandon Atterbury jeff.1.atterbury@farmersinsurance.com, 

margaret.butts@farmersinsurance.com, stephanie.mackey@farmersinsurance.com

Thomas Philip Zito tom.zito@lawfoundation.org

Case 5:15-cv-04768-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 3