Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01551/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01551-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Berkeley Historical Society
Defendant
Richard Schwartz
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

Stipulation.DOC 

 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

Kaye

Scholer llp

Robert Barnes, Bar Number 119515 

KAYE SCHOLER LLP 

1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1700 

Los Angeles, California 90067 

Telephone: (310) 788-1000 

Facsimile: (310) 788-1200 

Thomas A. Smart (Not admitted in California) 

KAYE SCHOLER LLP 

425 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10022 

Telephone: (212) 836-8000 

Fax: (212) 836-7158 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

RICHARD SCHWARTZ 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RICHARD SCHWARTZ,

 Plaintiff, 

v.

BERKELEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY,

 Defendant. 

No. C05-01551 JCS 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION AND REPLY 

PAPERS TO DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(N.D. Cal. Local Rule 6-1(b)) 

Date: September 9, 2005 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Courtroom: Courtroom A, 15th Floor 

 Judge: Honorable Joseph C. Spero

1. Plaintiff Richard Schwartz and defendant Berkeley Historical Society, by and through 

their respective counsel, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, that plaintiff’s time to 

oppose defendant’s Motion to Dismiss shall be extended to, and including, August 5, 2005. The 

parties further stipulate that defendant shall have until August 19, 2005 to reply to defendant’s 

opposition. 

Case 3:05-cv-01551-JCS Document 18-1 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 1 of 3 Case 3:05-cv-01551-JCS Document 19 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 3
Stipulation.DOC 

2

 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

Kaye

S

c

h

oler llp

2. On June 27, 2005, on its own motion, this Court moved the hearing date to September 

9, 2005 from July 29, 2005, the date initially chosen by defendant in its Notice of Motion and 

Motion to Dismiss. The briefing schedule was not changed which currently requires plaintiff to file 

its opposition by July 8, 2005 and defendant to file its reply papers by July 15, 2005.

3. The parties are engaged in good faith settlement discussions and are hopeful that they 

will reach a successful conclusion shortly. (See Haje Declaration, ¶ 2). To facilitate such 

discussions, the parties request this Court order extending the time the parties have to file opposition 

and reply papers. 

4. The requested extension will cause no disruption or delay in the Court's docket and 

will provide the parties with more time to engage in good faith settlement negotiations with the 

expectation that this matter will be successfully resolved without judicial intervention and without 

incurring further legal fees. (See Haje Declaration, ¶¶ 4, 5). 

5. This is plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss; no prior extensions of time have been sought or granted. This Court has 

previously extended defendant’s time to respond to plaintiff’s complaint but this is defendant’s first 

request for an extension of time to reply to plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

(See Haje Declaration, ¶¶ 6, 7). 

Dated: June 30, 2005. 

KAYE SCHOLER LLP HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI 

CANADY FALK & RABKINEL 

By: /s/ By: /s/ 

 Thomas A. Smart Shannon Scott 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant 

RICHARD SCHWARTZ BERKELEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

 SO ORDERED: 

 ____________________________ 

 Honorable Joseph C. Spero 

Dated: ________ 

Case 3:05-cv-01551-JCS Document 18-1 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 2 of 3

7/11/5

/s/ Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:05-cv-01551-JCS Document 19 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 3
Stipulation.DOC 

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

Kaye

S

c

h

oler llp

I, Thomas A. Smart, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. General Order No. 45, that the 

concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory hereto. 

Dated: June 30, 2005. 

 /s/ 

Thomas A. Smart 

Attorney for Plaintiff RICHARD SCHWARTZ 

Case 3:05-cv-01551-JCS Document 18-1 Filed 07/01/2005 Page 3 of 3 Case 3:05-cv-01551-JCS Document 19 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 3