Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04887/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04887-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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

Case No. 3:15-cv-04887-WHA 

DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE THE REPLY 

TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS 

JOHN C. BEIERS, COUNTY COUNSEL (SBN 144282)

Aimee B. Armsby, Deputy (SBN 226967) 

Rebecca B. Horton, Deputy (SBN 308052) 

Hall of Justice and Records 

400 County Center, 6th Floor 

Redwood City, CA 94063 

Telephone: (650) 363-4768 

Facsimile: (650) 363-4034 

E-mail: aarmsby@smcgov.org 

Attorneys for Defendants 

SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 

SHERIFF GREG MUNKS 

DEPUTY SHERIFF DENNIS LOUBAL 

DEPUTY SHERIFF DEFRANCE MCLEMORE 

DEPUTY SHERIFF CHRIS LAUGHLIN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OSMAN YOUSIF 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF, SHERIFF GREG 

MUNKS, DEPUTY SHERIFFS DENNIS LOUBAL, 

CHRIS LAUGHLIN, DEFRANCE MCLEMORE, 

CITY OF MENLO PARK, OFFICER CHRIS 

ADAIR, and, DOES 1-100 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-04887-WHA 

DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATED REQUEST 

FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO 

FILE THE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S 

OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

[Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) and Civil 

L.R. 6-2]

Date: May 5, 2016 

Time: 8:00 a.m. 

Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor 

Judge: Hon. William H. Alsup

Case 3:15-cv-04887-WHA Document 47 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 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

Case No. 3:15-cv-04887-WHA -1- 

DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE THE REPLY 

TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS 

COMES NOW Defendants San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Greg Munks, Deputy 

Sheriffs Dennis Loubal, Defrance McLemore, and Chris Laughlin, (collectively “County Defendants”) 

through their attorney of record, hereby respectfully request an extension of two days to reply to 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 

1. Counsel for County Defendants have conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel and Menlo Park 

Defendants’ counsel and there is no opposition to this request. 

2. On October 22, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging various 

claims for relief based on 42 U.S.C. 1983. (Doc. No. 1). On February 1, 2016, County Defendants 

timely filed the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 23). On 

February 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed, and the Court Granted, Plaintiff’s Notice of Substitution of Counsel. 

(Doc. Nos. 25, 27). On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended 

Complaint On or Before February 14, 2016, which the Court granted. (Doc. Nos. 29, 30). On February 

16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File the Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 32). 

The Court granted this Motion, giving leave to file the Amended Complaint on or before February 19, 

2016. (Doc. No. 33). On February 23, 2016, the Court issued sua sponte an Order ordering the amended 

pleadings due by February 26, 2016. (Doc. No. 34). On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Amended 

Complaint. (Doc. No. 35). On February 29, 2016, the Court denied the previously filed Motion to 

Dismiss without prejudice. (Doc. No. 36). 

On February 11, 2016, County Defendants timely filed the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 37). The Court corrected the 

briefing schedule as to the Motions, ordering Plaintiff’s Opposition due by March 25, 2016. On March 

28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Responses by April 1, 2016. (Doc. No. 41). The 

Court granted the Motion in part, ordering Plaintiff to file his Opposition by “end of the day” of March 

28, 2016. (Doc. No. 42). Plaintiff filed his Response to County Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on 

March 28, 2016. 

3. The relief requested herein is for good cause. The County Defendant is requesting the 

extension of time for filing the Reply because of the extensions previously granted in the briefing 

schedule resulting in an unforeseen conflict with County Defendant’s attorney’s planned time out of the 

Case 3:15-cv-04887-WHA Document 47 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 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

Case No. 3:15-cv-04887-WHA -2-

DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE THE REPLY 

TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS 

office. 

4. The two-day extension in filing the Reply will not cause any undue delay in the 

administration of this case. The hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is set for May 5, 2016. 

5. This is the first time that County Defendant has made no other requests for extensions of 

time in this case. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, County Defendants respectfully move that the Court extend the time 

for responding to Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss to April 7, 2016. 

 

Dated: April 5, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

JOHN C. BEIERS, COUNTY COUNSEL 

By: /s/ 

 Aimee Armsby, Deputy County Counsel 

 

Attorneys for Defendants 

SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE 

SHERIFF GREG MUNKS 

DEPUTY SHERIFF DENNIS LOUBAL 

DEPUTY SHERIFF DEFRANCE LOUBAL 

DEPUTY SHERIFF CHRIS LAUGHLIN 

ORDER 

It is hereby ORDERED the County Defendants Unopposed Motion for and Extension of time for 

responding to Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted to April 7, 2016. 

DATED: _________________________ _____________________________________ 

 The Honorable William A. Alsup 

April 5, 2016.

Case 3:15-cv-04887-WHA Document 47 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 3