Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04095/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04095-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 444
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Welfare
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

Stip. to Extend Time re Response to Complaint; Order California Alliance etc. v. Allenby, et al. C 06-4095 MHP

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

TERESA L. STINSON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

GEORGE PRINCE #133877

Deputy Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 703-5749

Fax: (415) 703-5480

Attorneys for Defendants California

Department of Social Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF CHILD &

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff ,

v.

CLIFF ALLENBY, Interim Director of the

California Department of Social Services, in his

official capacity; MARY AULT, Deputy

Director of the Children and Family Services

Division of the California Department of Social

Services, in her official capacity

Defendants.

CASE NO. C 06-4095 MHP

STIPULATION TO EXTEND 

TIME TO RESPOND TO

COMPLAINT; AND ORDER

GRANTING EXTENSION OF

TIME [PROPOSED]

Complaint filed: June 30, 2006

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter on June 30, 2006, and within four court

days had personally served the Complaint on both Defendants, officials of the California

Department of Social Services (Department.) The Department accepted service on behalf of all

defendants on July 6, 2006, and are hereby entering their first appearance for them and

confirming that service of the summons and complaint is completed. Accordingly, the

Department’s response to the Complaint is due twenty days after defendants were served, i.e., on

July 26, 2006. However, the defendants are unable to adequately respond to the Complaint

within the allotted twenty days, in part because the Attorney General’s Office, appearing as

Case 3:06-cv-04095-MHP Document 6 Filed 07/26/06 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

Stip. to Extend Time re Response to Complaint; Order California Alliance etc. v. Allenby, et al. C 06-4095 MHP

2

counsel for defendants, only recently received the Complaint. For this reason, Plaintiff has

agreed to a thirty-day extension of time for the defendants to file and serve their response to the

Complaint, to and including August 25, 2006.

2. Since the Complaint was recently filed, this extension of time will not conflict with the

case management deadlines set by the Court in the Order Setting Initial Case Management

Conference, filed on June 30, 2006.

3. Good cause exists for the requested extension of time because this case presents

complex issues of law, fact, and government policies. The Complaint seeks a jury trial,

declaratory and injunctive relief under the Civil Rights Act for alleged violations of the Child

Welfare Act, attorneys fees, and all costs of suit. Plaintiff is an association of service providers

that operate group homes and which receive payment from the Department for the group home

services they provide. Plaintiff alleges that the payments received by their members are

insufficient and seeks to enjoin defendant’s utilization of the Rate Classification Level (RCL)

system of payments to service providers. The RCL consists of 14 different rate levels,

depending upon the level of services provided. In addition to seeking an injunction and a

declaration that the RCL violates federal law, plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Department

to develop and implement a new payment system, and to make interim adjustments to payments

pending implementation of new rates. Due to the complexities of this case, plaintiff stipulates to

a 30-day extension of time, to August 25, 2006, for defendants to respond to the Complaint.

Dated: July 25, 2006 _/s/___________________________ William F. Abrams

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: July 25, 2006 _/s/___________________________ George Prince

Attorney for Defendants

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, AND PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________ __________________________________

HONORABLE MARILYN HALL

PATEL

U.S. District Court Judge

Northern District of California

40100653.wpd / SF2006401941

July 26, 2006

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:06-cv-04095-MHP Document 6 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2