Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02383/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02383-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT 

OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

Charles L. Coleman, III (65496) 

Tara S. Kaushik (230098) 

Thomas D. Leland (Pro Hac) 

Leah E. Capritta (Pro Hac) 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 743-6900 

Fax: (415) 743-6910 

E-mail: charles.coleman@hklaw.com 

 tara.kaushik@hklaw.com 

 thomas.leland@hklaw.com 

 leah.capritta@hklaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

UNITED ENERGY TRADING, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, a California corporation,; 

ALBERT TORRES, an individual; BILL 

CHEN, an individual; TANISHA ROBINSON, 

an individual,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 3:15-CV-2383

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN 

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS, CONTINUANCE OF 

HEARING DATE, AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER [RULES 6-2 AND 7-7] 

Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg 

)

 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, United Energy Trading, LLC, by and through its attorneys, 

Holland & Knight, LLP, and the Defendants, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Albert Torres, Bill 

Chen and Tanisha Robinson, by and through their attorneys Paul Hastings, LLP, and hereby file 

their Stipulated Request for an Enlargement of Time to File Opposition and Reply Briefs Regarding 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 82 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 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 - 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT 

OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and continue the related hearing date. In support of the same, the 

Parties state as follows: 

On February 4, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to Plaintiff’s 

underlying Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 79.) 

Per Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to this Motion is due by February 18, 

2016.

Per Local Rule 7-3(c), Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss is due 

seven days from the filing of Plaintiff’s Opposition, and no later than February 25, 2016.

The hearing date for this Motion to Dismiss is currently set for March 10, 2016. (Dkt. No. 

79.)

Plaintiff and Defendants now file this stipulated request that the due dates for the Opposition

and Reply briefs, and the hearing date, be enlarged as follows: 

That Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss now be due March 18, 

2016;

That Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss be due fourteen (14) days 

from the date Plaintiff’s Opposition is filed and no later than April 1, 2016; 

That the hearing date be continued to April 21, 2016.

Both briefing enlargements are sought in advance of the expiration of either filing deadline, 

pursuant to Local Rule 6-6(a). 

The hearing continuance is sought before Plaintiff’s Opposition has been filed and before 

the date that Opposition is due, currently February 18, 2016. It is thus properly requested under 

Local Rule 7-7(a).

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 82 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 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 - 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT 

OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

The Parties have previously submitted stipulated requests to extend the time for Defendants 

to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint by two weeks and to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint by one 

month.

The Parties have also previously jointly requested changes to the briefing schedule 

regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all claims of Plaintiff’s original Complaint.

No other enlargements have been sought by the parties, and all of their joint requests have 

been granted. 

None of the sought enlargements will otherwise change the schedule of case. 

Good cause exists for all enlargements sought herein because: (1) none prejudices any of the 

Parties or the Court, (2) both serve to maintain the thirty-five (35) day notice schedule contemplated 

by Local Rule 7-2(a), and (3) both grant the Court more than the minimum amount of time to 

review the briefing as contemplated by Rule 7-2. 

THEREFORE, pursuant to Local Rules 6-2(a) and 7-7(a), the Parties respectfully file this 

stipulated request that Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss now be due 

March 18, 2016; that Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss be due fourteen (14) 

days from the date Plaintiff’s Opposition is filed and no later than April 1, 2016; and that the 

hearing on this matter be continued to April 21, 2016. The declaration of Thomas D. Leland, 

required by Local Rule 6-2, is filed contemporaneously with this Motion.

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: February 11, 2016 By: /s/ Adam M. Reich 

 Adam M. Reich 

Counsel for Defendants

Dated: February 11, 2016 By: /s/ Thomas D. Leland 

Thomas D. Leland 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 82 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 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 - 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ENLARGEMENT 

OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE CASE NO.: 3:15-CV-2383 

Holland & Knight LLP 

50 California Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415.743.6900 

Fax: 415.743.6910 

ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Case Schedule is 

modified as follows: 

Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is now due March 18, 

2016.

Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss is due fourteen (14) days from the 

date Plaintiff’s Opposition is filed and no later than April 1, 2016. 

The date of the hearing on this Motion to Dismiss is now set for April 21, 2016. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: __________ _____________________________________________ 

The Honorable Richard Seeborg 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2/11/16

Case 3:15-cv-02383-RS Document 82 Filed 02/11/16 Page 4 of 4