Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00152/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00152-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)

---

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

MICHAEL K. HAGEMANN, ESQ. (SBN 264570)

CLAY R. WILKINSON, ESQ.

M.K. HAGEMANN, P.C.

1801 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2400

CENTURY CITY, CA 90067

T. 310.773.4900 | F. 310.773.4901

mhagemann@mkhlaw.com

cwilkinson@mkhlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff EDGAR GLOVER 

TERRY A. WILLS, ESQ. (SBN 133962)

STEPHEN R. McCUTCHEON, JR., ESQ. (SBN 191749)

CHRISTOPHER S. ALVAREZ, ESQ. (SBN 294795)

COOK BROWN, LLP

555 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 425

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

T. 916.442.3100 | F. 916.442.4227

twills@cookbrown.com

smccutcheon@cookbrown.com

Attorneys for Defendants THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF 

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY and JANICE A. 

PARTEN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

EDGAR GLOVER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v. 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, 

California public entity JANICE A. PARTEN, 

an individual in her individual capacity; 

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY 

EMPLOYEES UNION (CSUEU), a California 

corporation and labor organization; and DOES 1-

150,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-CV-000152-SAB

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff EDGAR GLOVER (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF 

THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY (“Defendant California State University”) and JANICE 

A. PARTEN (“Defendant Parten”) (collectively “Defendants”) by and through their counsel of 

record, enter into this stipulation with reference to the following facts:

Case 1:15-cv-00152-SAB Document 39 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 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

On September 2, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ stipulation and request

for, among other things, a two-week extension of time to respond to the Second Amended 

Complaint to meet and confer in an effort to potentially avoid a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. No 

other extension of time has been requested pertaining to Defendants’ responsive pleading.

Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants have continued to meet and confer in good faith 

regarding whether certain claims are viable under California and federal law.

Based upon the efforts by counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff intends to file a 

motion for leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint on or about September 23, 2015, and 

file his Third Amended Complaint. Counsel for Defendants does not intend to oppose Plaintiff’s 

motion.

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that Defendants 

California State University and Parten shall have fourteen (14) days from either (1) the filing of 

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint upon the Court granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, or (2) the filing of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to amend Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, to answer or otherwise respond 

to Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

DATED: September 23, 2015 M.K. HAGEMANN, P.C.

CLAY R. WILKINSON, ESQ.

By: /s/ Clay R. Wilkinson

Attorneys for Plaintiff EDGAR GLOVER 

DATED: September 23, 2015 COOK BROWN, LLP

TERRY A. WILLS, ESQ.

STEPHEN R. McCUTCHEON, JR., ESQ.

CHRISTOPHER S. ALVAREZ, ESQ.

By: /s/ Christopher S. Alvarez____

Attorneys for Defendants THE BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE 

UNIVERSITY and JANICE A. PARTEN 

Case 1:15-cv-00152-SAB Document 39 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 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

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED, for good cause having been shown, Defendants California State 

University and Parten shall have fourteen (14) days, from [the filing of Plaintiff’s Second Amended 

Complaint or the filing of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint], to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00152-SAB Document 39 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 3