Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05000/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05000-2/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 MTN TO DISMISS BY TOWN OF ATHERTON

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 DEF. TOWN

) OF ATHERTON’S MOTION TO

TONY DENNIS, DEAN DEVLUGT, ) DISMISS & PROPOSED ORDER. 

THE TOWN OF ATHERTON, )

THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ) Date: April 23, 2010

and DOES 1-500, inclusive, ) 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 Defendants

Town of Atherton, Tony Dennis, Dean DeVlugt, and Anthony Kockler hereby stipulate to

request that the Court order the extension of the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff’s

Opposition to these Defendants’ joint Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (currently scheduled to be heard on April 23, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. before this Court),

from February 19, 2010 to April 2, 2010, and, correspondingly, extend Defendants Atherton,

Dennis, DeVlugt, and Kockler’s deadline to file its reply from February 26, 2010 to April 9,

2010. The extension of time would not affect the hearing date of the motion (April 23,

2010).

Case 3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document 34 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document32 Filed02/18/10 Page1 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

2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MTN TO DISMISS BY TOWN OF ATHERTON

It is so stipulated.

DATED: 2/18/10 /s/ 

JERRY Y. FONG, for Plaintiff

JONATHAN BUCKHEIT

DATED: 2/18/10 /s/ 

PATRICK R. CO, for Defendants TOWN OF

ATHERTON, TONY DENNIS, DEAN 

DEVLUGT, AND ANTHONY KOCKLER

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, Defendants Town of Atherton, Tony Dennis, Dean DeVlugt, and

Anthony Kockler’s joint motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is scheduled

to be heard on April 23, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., before this Court.

4. The Court set February 19, 2010, as the deadline for the filing of Plaintiff’s

Opposition and February 26, 2010, as the deadline for the filing of Defendants Town,

Dennis, DeVlugt, and Kockler’s Reply.

5. At the same time, Defendant County of San Mateo also filed its motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. That motion is also scheduled to be heard on

April 23, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. before this Court. However, unlike the motion by Defendants

Town, Dennis, DeVlugt, and Kockler, San Mateo County’s motion has a different briefing

schedule. Under the local rules, Plaintiff’s opposition to San Mateo County’s motion is due

on April 2, 2010, and San Mateo’s reply is due on April 9, 2010.

6. I have spoken with Alan Chang, one of the attorneys with Clapp, Moroney,

Case 3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document 34 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document32 Filed02/18/10 Page2 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

3

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MTN TO DISMISS BY TOWN OF ATHERTON

Bellagamba, Vucinich, Beeman & Scheley, the law firm representing Defendants Town of

Atherton, et al., in this case. He and I agree that, for efficiency and uniformity’s sake, the

two separate sets of motions should be placed on the same briefing schedule track: 

Plaintiff’s opposition due on April 2, 2010, and Defendants’ replies due on April 9, 2010. 

7. In addition, Plaintiff needs more time to file its Opposition because both

attorneys for Plaintiff are currently tied up in extended depositions in multi-party cases. 

8. This is the first request for any extension of time relating to Defendants Town,

Dennis, DeVlugt, and Kockler’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

Previously, there was one extension granted to Plaintiff (for a period of 3 days) to file it

opposition to County of San Mateo’s first motion to dismiss (relating to Plaintiff’s original

complaint). 

9. Because the hearing is scheduled on April 23, 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 February 18, 2010.

 /s/

JERRY Y. FONG

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: Plaintiff shall file his

Opposition to Defendants’ Town of Atherton, et. al.,’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint on April 2, 2010, and the Defendants shall file their Replies, if any, on

April 9, 2010. The hearing shall remain on April 23, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

DATED: 

MAGISTRATE-JUDGE OF THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document32 Filed02/18/10 Page3 of 3

is rescheduled to May 7, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

2/23/10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cv-05000-JCS Document 34 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 3