Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02122/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02122-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 15:53(b) - Prelim &amp; Perm Inj Relief &amp; other Equitable Relief

---

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

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, ESQ. (No. 148213)

 tim@thimeschlaw.com

THIMESCH LAW OFFICES, PLC

158 Hilltop Crescent

Walnut Creek, CA 94576-3452

Direct: (925) 588-0401

Facsimile: (888) 210-8868

Attorney for Plaintiff PATRICIA JORDAN

BENJAMIN C. MIZER 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

CARLOTTA WELLS 

Assistant Branch Director, Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division 

LISA ZEIDNER MARCUS (N.Y. Bar 4461679) - Trial Attorney lisa.marcus@usdoj.gov

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 7th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Telephone: (202) 514-3336 

Facsimile: (202) 616-8470 

Attorneys for Defendants, PRESIDIO TRUST and THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

PATRICIA JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRESIDIO TRUST, and THE U.S. EQUAL 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 16-cv-02122 KAW

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER 

CHANGING TIME TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND TO 

MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Case 4:16-cv-02122-KAW Document 35 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 3
— 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

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2 of the Northern District of California, 

plaintiff Patricia Jordan (“plaintiff”) and defendants the Presidio Trust and the U.S. Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (collectively, “defendants”), by and through their 

respective counsel, respectfully submit this stipulated request to: (1) extend the time for 

defendant to respond to plaintiffs’ Complaint, and (2) modify the briefing schedule for 

defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss as follows, as follows:

1. Defendants intend to respond to plaintiff’s Complaint by filing a motion to 

dismiss. Under the current schedule, defendants’ response (motion) is due on September 16, 

2016; plaintiff’s opposition to the motion is due two weeks later, on September 30, 2016; and 

defendants’ reply is due the following week, on October 7, 2016;

2. The parties agree that the briefing schedule should be modified due to the

anticipated complexity of defendants’ forthcoming motion, which defendants represent will raise 

jurisdictional issues and will also argue that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief 

will be granted. The commentary to the Civil Local Rules instructs that the default two weeks

for an opposition and one week for a reply “are minimum time periods,” and that for “complex 

motions,” such as the one that defendants anticipate filing here, “parties are encouraged to 

stipulate or seek a Court order establishing a longer notice period with correspondingly longer 

periods for response or reply.” Civil. L.R. 7-2 Commentary. 

3. In addition, defendants represent that their motion must be reviewed by multiple 

federal agencies before it can be filed, and additional time is needed due to the press of business. 

Similarly, the press of business informs the parties’ agreement that the timeframes for the 

opposition and the reply should be enlarged, since counsel for the parties must also continue their 

work on other matters during the time allowed for the briefing here.

4. For these reasons, the parties request that the Court enter the following stipulated 

briefing schedule: defendants’ motion to dismiss due by Monday, September 26; plaintiffs’ 

opposition due by Friday, November 4; defendants’ reply due by Thursday, Nov. 17.

Case 4:16-cv-02122-KAW Document 35 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 3
— 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

5. The requested briefing schedule will alter the current deadline (of September 16) 

for defendants’ response to the Complaint. One prior extensions of time has previously been 

requested and granted; on August 30, 2016, the Court granted defendants’ request to extend the 

deadline for responding to the Complaint. See ECF No. 30.

6. The requested time modification will not alter any other event or deadline. The 

next case management conference in this case is scheduled for November 29, 2016 at 1:30pm, 

and the parties are to file a Case Management Statement by November 22.

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND REQUESTED.

Dated: September 16, 2016 /s/ Timothy S. Thimesch

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, ESQ.

THIMESCH LAW OFFICES

Attorneys for Plaintiff PATRICIA JORDAN

Dated: September 16, 2016 /s/ Lisa Zeidner Marcus . LISA ZEIDNER MARCUS1

Counsel for Defendants 

PRESIDIO TRUST; and THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

 1 I, Lisa Zeidner Marcus, hereby attest, in accordance with the Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the concurrence in 

the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory listed here.

[Proposed] ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED. 

DATE: ________________________ ______________________________________________

HON. KANDIS A. WESTMORE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9/21/16

Case 4:16-cv-02122-KAW Document 35 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 3