Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03383/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03383-9/pdf.json

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

---

1

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATE

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

LAW 

OFFICE OF 

DENNIS 

CUNNINGHAM

San Francisco, Ca 

BEN ROSENFELD (State Bar #203845)

Law Office of Dennis Cunningham 

115 1⁄2 Bartlett Street 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Telephone: 415/285-8091 

Facsimile: 415/285-8092 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961 

Chief Trial Attorney 

BLAKE P. LOEBS, State Bar #145790

Deputy City Attorneys 

1390 Market Street, 6th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-3868 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JESSICA BATES, et al., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C-05-3383-SI 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CONTINUING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

HEARING DATE TO JULY 27, 2007 AND 

OPPOSITION AND REPLY FILING 

DEADLINES ACCORDINGLY 

No Trial Date Set 

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 61 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 62 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 63 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 3
2

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATE

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

LAW 

OFFICE OF 

DENNIS 

CUNNINGHAM

San Francisco, Ca 

 WHEREAS defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or Alternatively Partial 

Summary Judgment on April 20, 2007, with the Court’s permission to exceed the page limit 

given the large number of parties and claims in the case; and 

 WHEREAS the date currently set for the hearing on this motion is May 25, 2007; and 

 WHEREAS plaintiffs’ opposition is currently due on May 4, 2007; and 

 WHEREAS plaintiffs’ counsel, despite working diligently on the opposition, needs a 

additional time to respond to defendants’ 50 page motion, as well as permission to exceed the 

page limit; and 

 WHEREAS plaintiffs’ spoke with Courtroom Deputy Tracy Sutton and learned that the 

Court’s next available hearing date is June 22, 2007; but 

 WHEREAS defense counsel is beginning a trial in another matter (Estate of Cammerin 

Boyd, et al. v. CCSF, et al., No. 04-5459) on June 11, 2007, estimated to last six weeks before 

Judge Chesney, and 

 WHEREAS plaintiffs’ counsel is also involved in that case on the plaintiffs’ side; and 

 WHEREAS the next mutually available date, among all the parties, including the Court, 

is July 27, 2007; and 

 WHEREAS defendants will need additional time, and space, to reply to plaintiffs’ 

opposition, in light of both the anticipated length of plaintiffs’ opposition, as well as defense 

counsel’s duties in the Boyd trial; and 

 WHEREAS the trial in this matter has not yet been set, and no other dates will be 

affected by the proposed scheduling changes; 

The parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and respectfully 

request that the Court continue the following dates, as follows: 

 Summary Judgment Hearing Date and Further CMC: July 27, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

 Deadline for filing Opposition: June 13, 2007 

 Deadline for filing Reply: July 13, 2007 

/// 

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 61 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 62 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 63 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 3
3

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATE

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

LAW 

OFFICE OF 

DENNIS 

CUNNINGHAM

San Francisco, Ca 

The parties further request that the Court grant the parties leave to exceed the page 

limits for the Opposition and reply so that the opposition can be up to 55 pages long, and the 

Reply can be up to 35 pages long. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

DATED: May 3, 2007 

By: s/ - Ben Rosenfeld 

BEN ROSENFELD 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

JOANNE HOEPER 

Chief Trial Deputy 

BLAKE P. LOEBS 

Deputy City Attorneys 

DATED: May 3, 2007 

By: /s/ - Blake P. Loebs 

BLAKE P. LOEBS 

Attorneys for Defendants 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated:_______________________ _________________________________ 

HON. SUSAN ILLSTON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 61 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 3 of 3
 Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 62 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 3 of 3

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 63 Filed 05/04/07 Page 3 of 3