Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04723/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04723-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statutes

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a

California corporation doing business as

AT&T CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff and Petitioner

 v.

THE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK and THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WALNUT

CREEK,

Defendants and Respondents. /

No. C-05-4723 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 46)

Before the Court is the motion filed March 28, 2006 by defendants City of Walnut

Creek and the City Council of the City of Walnut Creek (jointly “City”), seeking an extension

of time for the City to respond to the motion for partial summary judgment filed March 17,

2006 by plaintiff Pacific Bell Telephone Company, doing business as AT&T California

(“AT&T”). AT&T has filed opposition.

The Court agrees that the resources of the parties and the Court would best be

served by staying briefing on the motion for summary judgment until after the Court rules

on the City’s pending motion to dismiss and/or for abstention (“motion to dismiss”). 

Case 3:05-cv-04723-MMC Document 54 Filed 04/04/06 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

2

Accordingly, the City’s motion to enlarge time is hereby GRANTED and the April 21, 2006

hearing on the motion for summary judgment is hereby VACATED. 

Should all or part of the complaint survive the City’s motion to dismiss, AT&T

thereafter may, at its discretion, either renotice its motion for summary judgment or file a

new motion for summary judgment. Any motion for summary judgment shall be noticed for

hearing pursuant to the briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 16-5. The City’s time

to respond to the motion for summary judgment will run from the date the motion is

renoticed or the date a new motion for summary judgment is filed.

This order terminates Docket No. 46.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: April 4, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04723-MMC Document 54 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 2