Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05825/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05825-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water Act

---

FOURTH REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT – 

Civil No. 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ 

 

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 

Erica Maharg (Bar No. 279396) 

Nicole C. Sasaki (Bar No. 298736) 

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER 

1736 Franklin Street, Suite 800 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: (510) 735-9700 

Facsimile: (510) 735-9160 

Email: erica@baykeeper.org

Email: nicole@baykeeper.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, a non-profit 

corporation, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES F. TAYLOR dba PINOLE RODEO 

AUTO WRECKERS, 

 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ 

FOURTH REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND 

ASSOCIATED DEADLINES, AND TO 

EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 

 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) 

 Honorable Maria-Elena James 

Case 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ Document 19 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 4
FOURTH REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT – 

Civil No. 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ 

 

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 

WHEREAS, on December 18, 2015, Plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper (“Plaintiff”) filed the 

above-entitled action; 

WHEREAS, Defendant has chosen to proceed as a pro se litigant, and has not appeared in this 

action; 

WHEREAS, on December 18, 2015, the Court set the initial Case Management Conference for 

March 17, 2016 (Dkt. 3); 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) have been working together 

in good faith to reach a settlement agreement in this action; 

WHEREAS, to allow time for settlement, on February 23, 2016, Plaintiff requested the Court 

continue the initial Case Management Conference (Dkt. 5), which the Court granted (Dkt. 6); 

WHEREAS, on April 25, 2016, Plaintiff requested the Court again continue the initial Case 

Management Conference to allow further time for settlement (Dkt. 10), which the Court granted (Dkt. 

11); 

WHEREAS, pursuant to a third request by Plaintiff (Dkt. 12), the Court set the initial Case 

Management Conference in this action for September 8, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., and continued other 

deadlines in the case (Dkt. 15); 

WHEREAS, throughout this time, the Parties have continued to negotiate the terms of a 

settlement agreement; 

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to continue informal negotiations in good faith, and anticipate 

reaching a final settlement in this action within the next six (6) weeks; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to reschedule the Case Management 

Conference for September 29, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., or at such later date that is convenient for the 

Court, in order to give the Parties a chance to complete settlement negotiations without involving the 

resources of the Court; 

Case 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ Document 19 Filed 08/18/16 Page 2 of 4
FOURTH REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT -- 

Civil No. 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ 

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 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to reschedule the deadline to file the 

Parties’ ADR certifications and stipulations to ADR process or notices of need for an ADR phone 

conference no later than one week before the Case Management Conference; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to reschedule the deadline to file the 

Parties’ Rule 26(f) Report and Joint Case Management Statement no later than one week before the 

Case Management Conference; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to reschedule the deadline to file the 

Parties’ initial disclosures or objections in their Rule 26(f) Report no later than one week before the 

Case Management Conference; 

WHEREAS, Defendant’s deadline to respond to the complaint was initially April 18, 2016; 

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2016 and April 25, 2016, Plaintiff requested the Court extend 

Defendant’s time to respond to the complaint, both of which the Court granted (see Dkt. 8, 9, 10, 11). 

WHEREAS, pursuant to a third request filed by Plaintiff (Dkt. 12), the Court extended 

Defendant’s time to respond to the complaint to August 22, 2016 (Dkt. 15); 

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to extend the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint 

until September 26, 2016; 

WHEREAS, such an extension of time within which to answer or otherwise respond to the 

complaint will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court Order; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests, upon the Court’s approval, to extend the time for Defendant to 

respond to the complaint to September 26, 2016, in order to give the Parties a chance to complete 

settlement negotiations; 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to approve and enter the Proposed 

Order below. 

DATE: August 17, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Nicole C. Sasaki 

 Nicole C. Sasaki 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER 

Case 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ Document 19 Filed 08/18/16 Page 3 of 4
FOURTH REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT -- 

Civil No. 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ 

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, 

1. The Case Management Conference shall be continued to ________________________ 

at 10:00 a.m. 

2. The Parties’ ADR certifications and stipulations to ADR process or notices of need for 

an ADR phone conference shall be filed no later than one week before the Case 

Management Conference. 

3. The Parties’ Rule 26(f) Report and Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no 

later than one week before the Case Management Conference. 

4. The Parties’ initial disclosures or objections in their Rule 26(f) Report shall be filed no 

later than one week before the Case Management Conference. 

5. Defendant’s time to respond to the complaint shall be extended to September 26, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: ____________________ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 _____________________________________ 

 Honorable Maria-Elena James 

 United States District Court 

December 1, 2016 August 18, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ Document 19 Filed 08/18/16 Page 4 of 4