Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05580/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-05580-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

STIPULATION ANDPROPOSED ORDER 1 Case No. 03-5580 CW

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

GARY M. LEPPER, SBN 45498

WAKAKO T. URITANI, SBN 223619

LEPPER & HARRINGTON

1600 S. Main Street, Suite 305

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

(925) 256-6180

(925) 943-6190 (fax)

Attorneys for defendants

County of Napa, Terry Davis

and Lawrence Braun

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES THOMAS HART,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

LAWRENCE L. BRAUN, COUNTY OF

NAPA, TERRY DAVIS, Public Defender for

the County of Napa,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 03-05580 CW

STIPULATION FOR REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME IN RESPONSE

TO ORDER FOR BRIEFING AFTER

REMAND AND PROPOSED ORDER

 On September 13, 2005, the Ninth Circuit ruled that dismissal due to expiration of the statute

of limitations for legal malpractice, without considering the applicability of equitable tolling, was error.

 On October 4, 2005, this court issued an order specifying a briefing schedule on the issue of

whether equitable tolling applies to plaintiff’s malpractice claim:

• Defendants’ motion by October 18, 2005;

• Plaintiff’s opposition by November 1, 2005; and

• Defendants’ reply by November 8, 2005.

Case 4:03-cv-05580-CW Document 25 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION ANDPROPOSED ORDER 2 Case No. 03-5580 CW

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

Ordinarily, defendants could comply with this schedule. However, Gary M. Lepper – the only

attorney who has worked on this case from its inception – has a vacation scheduled out-of-state from

October 16 to October 31, 2005. Consequently, defendants respectfully request and plaintiff stipulates

to a revised briefing schedule, as follows:

• Defendants’ motion by November 15, 2005;

• Plaintiff’s opposition by November 29, 2005; and

• Defendants’ reply by December 6, 2005.

DATED: October 12, 2005 LEPPER & HARRINGTON

 /s/

 __________________________________

 GARY M. LEPPER

 Attorney for Defendants

DATED: October 12, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF FRANK G. PRANTIL

 /s/

 __________________________________

 FRANK G. PRANTIL

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: __________________________________

 JUDGE CLAUDIA WILKEN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10/12/05

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Claudia Wilken

Case 4:03-cv-05580-CW Document 25 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2