Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04683/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04683-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phil Boyle
Defendant
City of Petaluma
Defendant
Kim Gordon
Defendant
Brian Heim
Plaintiff
Michael Moore
Defendant
Petaluma Community Development Department
Defendant
Tiffany Robbe
Defendant
Craig Spaulding
Defendant
George White
Defendant

Document Text:

STIPULATION, [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME 

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

Deborah J. Fox (SBN: 110929 ) 

dfox@meyersnave.com 

MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 

333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1670 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 626-2906 

Facsimile: (213) 626-0215 

Attorneys for Defendants 

City of Petaluma, et al. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRIAN HEIM, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF PETALUMA, PETALUMA 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

DEPARTMENT, CRAIG SPAULDING, 

individually and in his official capacity, 

MICHAEL MOORE, individually and in 

his official capacity, GEORGE WHITE, 

individually and in his official capacity, 

KIM GORDON, individually and in her 

official capacity, TIFFANY ROBBE, 

individually and in her official capacity, 

and PHIL BOYLE, individually and in his 

official capacity, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No: CV06-4683-PJH 

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR 

DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO THE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

RESETTING THE CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE, AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER THEREON 

Case 4:06-cv-04683-PJH Document 20 Filed 12/29/06 Page 1 of 5
- 1 -

STIPULATION, [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME 

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 City of Petaluma, Petaluma Community Development Department, Craig 

Spaulding, Michael Moore, George White, Kim Gordon, Tiffany Robbe, Phil Boyle (collectively 

“the City defendants”) were served with the Amended Complaint on December 8, 2006; 

WHEREAS, the City defendants’ response to the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 

currently due on December 28, 2006; 

WHEREAS, the parties agree through their attorneys of record that the City defendants 

may have an additional fifteen (15) days to response to the Amended Complaint making the 

response due on or before January 12, 2007; 

WHEREAS, plaintiff Heim has requested the parties consider employing an ADR 

alternative and the City defendants need some time to consider this request. The parties agree 

that the case management conference presently set for January 4, 2007 should be continued to 

March 8, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their attorneys of 

record, that the deadline for all the City defendants to respond to the Amended Complaint shall 

be extended to January 12, 2007. 

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the Case Management Conference is continued until 

March 8, 2007. 

Dated: December 26, 2006 Respectfully submitted, 

 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 

By /s/ 

 DEBORAH J. FOX 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 City of Petaluma, et al. 

Dated: December 26, 2006 FLYNN, WILLIAMS, WESTER & HALL LLP

By /s/ 

 BARRY WESTER 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Brian Heim 

Case 4:06-cv-04683-PJH Document 20 Filed 12/29/06 Page 2 of 5
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME 

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

Deborah J. Fox (SBN: 110929 ) 

dfox@meyersnave.com 

MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 

333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1670 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 626-2906 

Facsimile: (213) 626-0215 

Attorneys for Defendants 

City of Petaluma, et al. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRIAN HEIM, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF PETALUMA, PETALUMA 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

DEPARTMENT, CRAIG SPAULDING, 

individually and in his official capacity, 

MICHAEL MOORE, individually and in 

his official capacity, GEORGE WHITE, 

individually and in his official capacity, 

KIM GORDON, individually and in her 

official capacity, TIFFANY ROBBE, 

individually and in her official capacity, 

and PHIL BOYLE, individually and in his 

official capacity, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No: CV06-4683-PJH 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case 4:06-cv-04683-PJH Document 20 Filed 12/29/06 Page 3 of 5
- 1 -

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME 

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

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED that: 

1. City defendants have until January 12, 2007 to respond to the Amended Complaint. 

2. The Case Management Conference is continued until March 8, 2007 at 

2:30 p.m. 

Dated: 

 HON. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

12/29/06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:06-cv-04683-PJH Document 20 Filed 12/29/06 Page 4 of 5
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

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the 

age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is Meyers, 

Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1670, Los Angeles, 

California 90071. 

On December 27, 2006, I caused to be served the within document(s): 

• STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO 

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RESETTING THE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

on the parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, each 

envelope addressed as follows: 

Barry Wester, Esq. 

FLYNN, WILLIAMS, WESTER & HALL LLP 

775 Baywood Drive, Suite 185 

Petaluma, CA 95954 

(707) 769-2999 Fax 

(X) (BY FIRST CLASS MAIL) I caused each such envelope, with postage thereon 

fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California. I 

am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and processing of mail 

in this office; and that in the ordinary course of business said document would be 

deposited with the U.S. Postal Service in Los Angeles on that same day. I 

understand that service shall be presumed invalid upon motion of a party served if 

the postal cancellation date or postage meter date on the envelope is more than one 

day after the date of deposit for mailing contained in this declaration. 

(X) (BY FACSIMILE) I caused said document(s) to be sent by facsimile machine 

number indicated above, by facsimile machine number (213) 626-0215, which 

machine complies with Rule 2003(3) of the California Rules of Court and no error 

was reported by the machine. 

(X) (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of 

this Court at whose direction the service was made. 

Executed on December 27, 2006, at Los Angeles, California. 

 /s/ 

 Kathleen Rodell 

Case 4:06-cv-04683-PJH Document 20 Filed 12/29/06 Page 5 of 5