Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01948/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01948-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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 - 1 - 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES 

FOR RESPONSE AND REPLY TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOT. TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

PHILIP S. WARDEN (SBN 54752) 

philip.warden@pillsburylaw.com 

ANDREW D. LANPHERE (SBN 191479) 

andrew.lanphere@pillsburylaw.com 

JUDY J. BAO (SBN 305560) 

judy.bao@pillsburylaw.com 

Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 983-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 983-1200 

Attorneys for Defendant 

STEPHEN A. FINN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOANNA C. SULLIVAN 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

STEPHEN A. FINN and DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive 

 Defendant. 

 

Case No. 16-cv-01948-WHO 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINES 

FOR RESPONSE AND REPLY TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT [DKT. 62]

Date: December 14, 2016 

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick 

Location Ctrm. 2, 17th Fl. 

 Plaintiff Joanna C. Sullivan (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Stephen A. Finn (“Defendant”) 

(collectively, the “Parties”), in accord with Rules 6-1 and 6-2 of the Local Rules for the United 

District Court for the Northern District of California, by and through their counsel of record, 

stipulate and agree as follows: 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend Plaintiff’s complaint (“Motion to 

Amend”) [Dkt. 62]; 

Case 3:16-cv-01948-WHO Document 65 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 4
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 - 2 – 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES 

FOR RESPONSE AND REPLY TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOT. TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

WHEREAS, Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend filed on November 4, 

2016 [Dkt. 62] is currently due on November 18, 2016, and Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s 

Response is currently due on November 25, 2016; 

WHEREAS, the Court has set the Motion to Amend hearing for December 14, 2016 [Dkt. 

62]; 

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred about potentially resolving the Motion to 

Amend without the need for further briefing or a hearing; 

WHEREAS, Defendant’s counsel has been unable to confer with client regarding the 

Motion to Amend due to Defendant’s need to attend to serious health issues in Defendant’s family; 

and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff is willing to provide Defendant with additional time to respond to the 

Motion to Amend so that Defendant’s counsel can confer with Defendant and potentially resolve 

the Motion to Amend without the need for further briefing or a hearing. 

 NOW THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and agree, subject to the Court’s approval, as 

follows: 

1. Defendant’s Response to the Motion to Amend will be due on November 28, 2016; 

and 

2. Plaintiff’s Reply to the Response to the Motion to Amend will due on December 5, 

2016. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: November 16, 2016. 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

Philip S. Warden 

Andrew D. Lanphere 

Judy J. Bao 

By: _/s/ Andrew D. Lanphere 

Attorney for Defendant Stephen A. Finn 

Case 3:16-cv-01948-WHO Document 65 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 4
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 - 3 – 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES 

FOR RESPONSE AND REPLY TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOT. TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

BEYERS COSTIN SIMON 

By: _/s/ Peter L. Simon_____________ 

Peter L. Simon 

Attorney for Plaintiff Joanna C. Sullivan 

ATTESTATION CLAUSE

 I attest under penalty of perjury that the concurrence in filing of this document has been 

obtained from its signatories. 

By: _/s/ Andrew D. Lanphere___________ 

 

Case 3:16-cv-01948-WHO Document 65 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefor, it is hereby 

ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s Complaint 

[Dkt. 62] shall be due on November 28, 2016; and 

2. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Plaintiff’s 

Complaint shall be due on December 5, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: __________________________ ___________________________________ 

William H. Orrick 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-01948-WHO Document 65 Filed 11/16/16 Page 4 of 4