Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05825/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05825-2/pdf.json

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

---

SECOND REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT --

Civil No. 4:15-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

George Torgun (Bar No. 222085)

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: george@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. 4:15-cv-05825-MEJ

SECOND 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 11 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 4
SECOND REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT --

Civil No. 4:15-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, Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively, the “Parties”) have been working together 

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

WHEREAS, pursuant to a request by Plaintiff (Dkt. 5), the Court set the initial Case 

Management Conference in this action for May 5, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., and continued other deadlines in 

the case (Dkt. 6);

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

reaching a final settlement in this action within the next ten (10) weeks;

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

Conference for July 7, 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;

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, pursuant to a request filed by Plaintiff (Dkt. 8), the Court extended Defendant’s 

time to respond to the complaint to until May 23, 2016 (Dkt. 9);

Case 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ Document 11 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 4
SECOND REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT --

Civil No. 4:15-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, the Parties desire to extend the time for Defendant to respond to the complaint 

until July 11, 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 July 11, 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: April 25, 2016 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Nicole C. Sasaki

Nicole C. Sasaki

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

Case 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ Document 11 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 4
SECOND REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC & TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT --

Civil No. 4:15-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 July 11, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ____________________ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

_____________________________________

Honorable Maria-Elena James

United States District Court

July 7, 2016 April 26, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-05825-MEJ Document 11 Filed 04/26/16 Page 4 of 4