Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03235/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03235-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Case No. C 06-03235 RMW -1-

KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321)

United States Attorney

JOANN M.. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

CLAIRE T. CORMIER (CSBN 154364)

Assistant United States Attorney

150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900

San Jose, California 95113

Telephone: (408) 535-5082

FAX: (408) 535-5081

claire.cormier@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAYMUNDO FERDIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL W. WYNNE, SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 06-03235 RMW

STIPULATION AND []

ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

FOR MOTION TO DISMISS

The parties to this action hereby stipulate and request as follows:

Plaintiff filed this action on May 15, 2006. The Office of the United States Attorney for

the Northern District of California was served on July 17, 2006. Pursuant to a request by made

defendants’ counsel and granted by plaintiff’s counsel, defendants’ response to the complaint

was due September 29, 2006. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and originally scheduled it for

hearing on November 17, 2006. At the parties request, the case management conference was

rescheduled to November 17, 2006 to coincide with the motion to dismiss. Defendant’s counsel

then informed plaintiff’s counsel that she had received notice of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal

oral argument on November 17, 2006. Accordingly, defendant renoticed the motion to dismiss

//

Case 5:06-cv-03235-RMW Document 21 Filed 11/17/06 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

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Case No. C 06-03235 RMW -2-

for hearing on December 1, 2006, and the case management conference was also continued to

that date. 

Pursuant to this Court’s local rules, plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion to

dismiss was due 21 days prior to the hearing. Plaintiff e-filed its opposition on Friday,

November 10 in the late afternoon. Due to the federal holiday on that date, defendant’s counsel

did not receive the opposition at that time.

Defendant’s counsel has advised plaintiff’s counsel that, on Monday, November 13, the

internet system for defendant’s counsel’s office was down for much of the day. Accordingly, she

could not access plaintiff’s e-filed opposition until mid-afternoon that date. In addition, as

previously discussed, defendant’s counsel has a Ninth Circuit argument on Friday, November 17. 

Due to the work involved in preparing for that argument, the delay in receiving plaintiff’s

opposition was particularly critical.

Defendant’s counsel requested and plaintiff’s counsel has agreed to a two court day

extension for defendant’s reply to the motion to dismiss, subject to the Court’s concurrence. If

the Court is agreeable, the parties request that the hearing date remain December 1, 2006. If the

Court prefers additional time due to the delay in receipt of the reply memorandum, the Court may

reschedule the hearing and the related case management conference.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: November 16, 2006 KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

CLAIRE T. CORMIER

Assistant United States Attorney

WOODSON & ALLEN, LLP

DATED: November16, 2006 /s/ 

WILLIAM N. WOODSON, III

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 5:06-cv-03235-RMW Document 21 Filed 11/17/06 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

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Case No. C 06-03235 RMW -3-

 ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, defendant’s reply

memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss is due no later than Tuesday, November 21,

2006. The hearing on the motion will take place on December ___, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., and the

case management conference will take place concurrently with the motion hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: _____________________ __________________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03235-RMW Document 21 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 3