Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03717/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03717-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

3:15-cv-03717-WHO 1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(B)(6) 

MOTION TO DISMISS; ORDER

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

IRWIN M. ZALKIN, ESQ. (#89957)

DEVIN M. STOREY, ESQ. (#234271)

ALEXANDER S. ZALKIN, ESQ. (#280813)

RYAN M. COHEN. ESQ, (#261313)

The Zalkin Law Firm, P.C.

12555 High Bluff Drive, Suite 301

San Diego, CA 92130

Tel: 858-259-3011

Fax: 858-259-3015

Email: Irwin@zalkin.com

dms@zalkin.com

alex@zalkin.com

ryan@zalkin.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SOFIE KARASEK, individually; 

NICOLETTA COMMINS, individually; 

ARYLE BUTLER, individually; 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA, a public entity, and 

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 3:15-cv-03717-WHO

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO 

RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S RULE 

12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS; 

AMENDED ORDER

Place: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor

Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick 

Case 3:15-cv-03717-WHO Document 61 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 3
3:15-cv-03717-WHO 2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(B)(6) 

MOTION TO DISMISS; ORDER

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

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(B)(6) 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, the parties to the above entitled action, by and through their 

respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) in this Court on April 

11, 2016;

WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintffs’ Third Amended 

Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) on May 9, 2016; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is due on May 23, 2016;

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that Plaintiffs may have an extension of 7 days to 

respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which would make Plaintiffs’ response due on Tuesday, 

May 31, 2016; 

WHEREAS, currently, Defendant’s reply to Plaintiffs’ response is due on May 31, 2016;

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that Defendant’s new deadline to reply to Plaintiffs’ 

response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss would be June 10, 2016;

WHEREAS, currently, the hearing date on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for 

June 15, 2016;

WHEREAS, if, given the new briefing schedule, the original hearing date is not convenient 

for the Court, the Court will move the hearing date to June 22, 2016; and

WHEREAS, this stipulation will not alter any other date of any event or any deadline 

already fixed by Court order.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiffs and Defendant, by and through their 

undersigned attorneys, that Plaintiff shall have a 7-day extension to respond to Defendant’s Rule 

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, making Plaintiffs’ response due 

on or before May 31, 2016. 

Case 3:15-cv-03717-WHO Document 61 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 3
3:15-cv-03717-WHO 3

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S RULE 12(B)(6) 

MOTION TO DISMISS; ORDER

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

DATED: May 20, 2016 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

BRADLEY S. PHILLIPS

HAILYN J. CHEN

By: /s/ Jeslyn A. Everitt

Jeslyn A. Everitt

Attorneys for Defendant

DATED: May 20, 2016 THE ZALKIN LAW FIRM, P.C.

IRWIN M. ZALKIN

DEVIN M. STOREY

ALEXANDER S. ZALKIN

RYAN M. COHEN

By: /s/ Alexander S. Zalkin 

 Alexander S. Zalkin

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

AMENDED ORDER

Plaintiffs’ new response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is due on Tuesday, May 31, 

2016;

Defendant’s new deadline to reply to Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

is due on June 10, 2016;

The hearing date on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for June 15, 2016; given 

the new briefing schedule, the original hearing date is not convenient for the Court, the Court moves

the hearing date to June 22, 2016.

Dated: May 25, 2016 ______________________________

Hon. William H. Orrick

Judge of the United States District Court

Case 3:15-cv-03717-WHO Document 61 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 3