Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05000/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05000-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SMC’S MOTION TO DISMISS 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

ROBERT E. CAREY, JR. (SBN 47556)

JERRY Y. FONG, ESQ. (SBN 99673)

CAREY & CAREY

706 COWPER STREET

P.O. BOX 1040

PALO ALTO, CA 94302-1040

650/328-5510

650/853-3632 fax

rec@careyandcareylaw.com

jf@careyandcareylaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff JONATHAN B. BUCKHEIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JONATHAN B. BUCKHEIT, ) CASE NO. CV 09-5000 JCS

)

Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER

) TO EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF

vs. ) TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SAN 

) MATEO COUNTY’S MOTION TO

TONY DENNIS, DEAN DEVLUGT, ) DISMISS 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

THE TOWN OF ATHERTON, ) & PROPOSED ORDER RE SAME. 

THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, )

ANTHONY KOCKLER, & JERRY ) Date: September 3, 2010

CARLSON, ) Time: 9:30 a.m.

) Mag.-Judge: Hon. Joseph C. Spero

Defendants. ) )

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 (a) and 7-12, Plaintiff Jonathan Buckheit and Defendant

County of San Mateo hereby stipulate to request that the Court order the extension of the

deadline (by one week) for the filing of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant County of San

Mateo’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (currently scheduled

to be heard on September 3, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. before this Court), from July 23, 2010 to July

30, 2010, and, correspondingly, extend Defendant County of San Mateo’s deadline to file its

reply, from July 30, 2010 to August 6, 2010. The extension of time would not affect the

Case 3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document 60 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 4 Case3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document59 Filed07/21/10 Page1 of 4
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

2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SMC’S MOTION TO DISMISS 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

hearing date of the motion (September 3, 2010) and would still be 4 weeks ahead of the

Local Rule 7-3 (a) and (c)’s scheduling/deadline requirement (opposition to be filed 21 days

before hearing and reply to be filed 14 days before hearing). This is the first request for an

extension of time for the briefing re this motion to dismiss the 2nd Amended Complaint.

It is so stipulated.

DATED: July 21, 2010 /S/ 

JERRY Y. FONG, for Plaintiff

JONATHAN BUCKHEIT

DATED: July 21, 2010 /S/ 

BRIAN WONG, for Defendant COUNTY OF

SAN MATEO

This stipulation is supported by the following declaration of Attorney Jerry Fong:

DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY JERRY FONG

I, Jerry Fong, declare:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before this Court and am one of the

attorneys for Plaintiff Jonathan Buckheit.

2. I make this declaration in compliance with Local Rule 6-2 (a). 

3. Currently, Defendant San Mateo County’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint is scheduled to be heard on September 3, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., before this

Court.

4. When it moved the hearing to September 3, 2010, the Court ordered that the

briefing schedule remain the same as it had been when the original hearing date was August

13, 2010, meaning that the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff’s Opposition would be July 23,

2010, and the deadline for the filing of Defendant San Mateo County’s reply would be July

Case 3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document 60 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 4 Case3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document59 Filed07/21/10 Page2 of 4
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

3

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SMC’S MOTION TO DISMISS 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

30, 2010.

5. For the past two weeks, I had been working on an emergency petition for a writ

of mandamus, just filed with the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. The

preparation of the writ petition consumed much of my time, leaving me with insufficient time

to finish preparing the opposition to San Mateo County’s motion to dismiss by July 23, 2010.

Accordingly, I am requesting a short extension of time (of one week, from July 23, 2010 to

July 30, 2010) to file the Opposition and a corresponding extension of the Defendant San

Mateo County’ time to file its Reply (from July 30, 2010 to August 6, 2010). 

6. I have contacted counsel for Defendant County of San Mateo, Mr. Brian Wong.

He is willing to agree to my request for a short, one-week extension of time so that

Plaintiff’s opposition will be due on July 30, 2010, and Defendant San Mateo County’s reply

will be due on August 6, 2010. 

7. This is the first request for any extension of time relating to Plaintiff’s filing

of his oppositions to the Defendant San Mateo County’s motion to dismiss the Second

Amended Complaint, and this request is made because the I was occupied with the filing of

the emergency writ petition. 

8. Because the hearing is scheduled on September 3, 2010, the requested

extension of time should not affect the hearing date.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed

on July 21, 2010, in Palo Alto, CA..

 /S/ 

JERRY Y. FONG

////

////

////

////

////

Case 3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document 60 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 4 Case3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document59 Filed07/21/10 Page3 of 4
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

4

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO SMC’S MOTION TO DISMISS 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

HEREIN, IT IS SO ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff shall file his Opposition to Defendant San

Mateo County’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on July 30,

2010, and the Defendant County of San Mateo shall file its Reply, if any, on August 6, 2010.

The hearing for the motions shall remain on September 3, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

DATED: 

MAGISTRATE-JUDGE OF THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document59 Filed07/21/10 Page4 of 4

07/22/10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document 60 Filed 07/22/10 Page 4 of 4