Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01440/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01440-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

C. D. Michel - S.B.N. 144258

Sean A. Brady - S.B.N. 262007

MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

180 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200

Long Beach, CA 90802 

Telephone: 562-216-4444

Facsimile: 562-216-4445

Email: cmichel@michellawyers.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO BRANCH COURTHOUSE

BARRY BAUER, STEPHEN

WARKENTIN, NICOLE FERRY,

LELAND ADLEY, JEFFREY

HACKER, NATIONAL RIFLE

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

INC., CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND

PISTOL ASSOCIATION

FOUNDATION, HERB BAUER

SPORTING GOODS, INC.,

Plaintiffs

vs.

KAMALA HARRIS, in Her Official

Capacity as Attorney General For the

State of California; STEPHEN

LINDLEY, in His Official Capacity

as Acting Chief for the California

Department of Justice, and DOES 1-

10,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE

OF MOTION TO STAY HEARING

DATE AND EXTEND ASSOCIATED

DEADLINES AND ORDER

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); Local Rules

144, 230(f)) 

I.

INTRODUCTION

The parties, Plaintiffs Barry Bauer, Stephen Warkentin, Nicole Ferry, Leland

Adley, Jeffrey Hacker, National Rifle Association of America, Inc., California

Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, Inc.

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and

1

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF MOTION TO STAY HEARING DATE

Case 1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 04/03/12 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

Chief of the Firearms Bureau Stephen Lindley (collectively “Defendants”), through

their respective attorneys of record, hereby jointly stipulate to continue the date of

the hearing for Defendants’ Motion to Stay and to extend the remaining deadlines

for moving papers related to that motion in accordance with the stipulated schedule

set forth herein.

II.

RECITALS/GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in this matter on

February 9, 2012;

WHEREAS, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended

Complaint on March 8, 2012;

WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in this matter

pending the Ninth Circuit en banc panel’s decision in Nordyke v. King, 664 F.3d

774 (9th Cir. 2011), on March 22, 2012;

WHEREAS, in that Motion to Stay, Defendants state they intend to file a

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings but wish to see if the anticipated Nordyke

opinion affects their legal arguments in their motion;

WHEREAS, based on the oral arguments that occurred on March 19, 2012 in

Nordyke, Plaintiffs believe that the en banc panel’s decision in Nordyke will likely

not address a standard of review and all parties believe that the decision will likely

be issued soon;

WHEREAS, all parties to this action likewise seek to keep the costs of

litigation low;

WHEREAS, all parties wish to conserve judicial time and resources;

WHEREAS, Local Rule 144(a) of this Court allows a 28-day extension of

time for responding to complaints and certain other documents, but states that “[a]ll

other extensions of time must be approved by the Court”;

WHEREAS, FRCP 6(b)(1)(A) allows for the extension of time for good cause, 

“with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before

2

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF MOTION TO STAY HEARING DATE

Case 1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 04/03/12 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

the original time or its extension expires”;

WHEREAS, no party has obtained an extension of time relating to any matter

for which this extension is sought;

AND WHEREAS, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE TO THE

FOLLOWING:

1. The hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Stay shall be moved to Monday,

May 25, 2012.

2. Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Stay shall be due on or

before April 23, 2012.

3. Defendants Reply in support of their Motion shall be due on or before May

7, 2012.

The parties hereby jointly request that this Court grant the relief sought by this

stipulation.

Dated: April 2, 2012 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

/s/ C. D. Michel 

C. D. Michel

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: April 2, 2012 Deputy Attorney General

/s/ Susan K. Smith 

Susan K. Smith 

(as approved on 4/2/12)

Attorney for Defendants

 PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS SO

ORDERED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF MOTION TO STAY HEARING DATE

Case 1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 04/03/12 Page 3 of 3