Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04723/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04723-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Cable & Telecommunications Association
Cross-claimant
City Council of the City of Walnut Creek
Counter-defendant
City of Walnut Creek
Counter-defendant
Pacific Bell Telephone Company
Counter-defendant
SBC California
Plaintiff

Document Text:

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING - 1 - CASE NO. C-05-4723 (MMC) 

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

KIRK E. TROST (State Bar # 127097) 

MADELINE E. MILLER (State Bar # 221568) 

MILLER, OWEN & TROST 

A Professional Corporation 

428 J Street, Suite 400 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 447-7933 

Facsimile: (916) 447-5195 

THOMAS HAAS, City Attorney (State Bar # 045279) 

PAUL VALLE-RIESTRA, Senior Assistant City Attorney (State Bar # 119321) 

MARGARET L. KOTZEBUE, Assistant City Attorney (State Bar # 148592) 

City of Walnut Creek 

P.O. Box 8039 

1666 North Main Street 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 943-5813 

Facsimile: (925) 256-3501 

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a 

California Corporation, doing business as SBC 

CALIFORNIA,

 Plaintiffs and Petitioner, 

 v. 

THE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, 

CALIFORNIA, and THE CITY COUNCIL 

OF THE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK 

 Defendants and Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-4723 MMC 

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case 3:05-cv-04723-MMC Document 100 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING - 2 - CASE NO. C-05-4723 (MMC) 

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, Defendants City of Walnut Creek and the City Council of the City of 

Walnut Creek have made a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and 

Defendant in Intervention California Cable & Telecommunications Association has answered 

said First Amended Complaint; 

WHEREAS, the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint is currently scheduled for February 9, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.; 

WHEREAS, the parties are engaged in discussions in an effort to resolve this matter; 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their 

designated counsel that, pursuant to Local Rule 7-7(b)(1) and 6-1(a), the hearing date for the

Defendant and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint is continued to 

April 20, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. 

DATED: January 23, 2007 MILLER, OWEN & TROST 

 A Professional Corporation 

 s/Kirk E. Trost 

 Kirk E. Trost 

 Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents 

City of Walnut Creek and the City Council of the 

 City of Walnut Creek 

DATED: January 23, 2007 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, 

 LLP 

 s/Ronald E. Van Buskirk 

 Ronald E. Van Buskirk 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner Pacific Bell 

 Telephone Company, a California Corporation, 

 doing business as SBC California 

Case 3:05-cv-04723-MMC Document 100 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING - 3 - CASE NO. C-05-4723 (MMC) 

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

DATED: January 23, 2007 HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK AND 

 RABKIN, A Professional Corporation 

 s/Bernard A. Burk 

 Bernard A. Burk 

 Attorneys for Intervenor California Cable and 

 Telecommunications Association 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ____________, 2007 _________________________ 

 Judge Maxine M. Chesney 

 United States District Court 

 Northern District of California 

January 23

Case 3:05-cv-04723-MMC Document 100 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 3