1 Gerald C. Sterns (State Bar No. 29976) 

STERNS & WALKER 

2 825 Washington Street, Suite 305 

Oakland, CA 94607 

3 Tel~t>hon~: (510) 267~.0.~00. 

Fac$nnile: (51 0) 267-.0506 

4 Email: sterns@trial-law.com 

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

6 

7 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 JOEL W. ADELSON, M.D., 

12 Plaintiff, 

13 

vs. 

14 

15 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., A 

DOMESTIC CORPORATON; BRITISH 

lo AIRWAYS, PLC, A FOREIGN 

CORPORATION. 

17 

) Case No.: 3:17-cv-00548-WHA 

) 

) 

) 

~ 

~ ) 

~ 

~ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE HIS OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

Hearing Date: May 11, 2017 

Time: 8:00a.m. 

Judge: Hon. William H. Alsup 

18 Defendants. ~ 

19 ----~ 

20 Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their respective attorneys hereby Stipulate as 

21 

follows: 

22 

WHEREFORE: 

23 

24 Plaintiff's opposition. to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is due on or 

25 before Aprill7;2017. 

26 Plaintiff is requesting an additional 10 days in which to respond, making Plaintiff's 

27 

opposition due on or before Apri127, 2017. 

28 

I 

Order re:

Stipulation for 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 

Defendants' Reply will be due on May 4, 2017. 

Plaintiff needs more time than just the minimum time under the Local Rules, which runs 

from the time offiling of the motion to fully and fairly deal with Defendants' Motion and answer 

it. 

Firstly, the issues raised deal with the meaning and application of the terms "embarking" 

or "disembarking" in the context of an international aviation flight, under the rules of the 

applicable treaty, the Montreal Convention. The terms are not defined in the Montreal 

Convention itself, and Plaintiff intends to undertake some extensive research of the cases and 

literature on that subject. The 14 days, or more, probably less, present a very short time for a 

motion tendering these issues to answer. 

Secondly, counsel for the responding party is a one lawyer office, and is scheduled to be 

out of the office and fully involved in a four day Annual Meeting of a professional trial lawyer 

group, long previously scheduled and booked in San Diego the rest of this week. Thus even less 

time will be available to deal with this motion. Additional time to reply is respectfully requested 

and has been agreed by the moving party. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

DATED: April II, 2017 STERNS & WALKER 

BY Is! ~--------- - ------------ Gerald C. Sterns 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DATED: April II, 2017 

. 2 

Order re:

Stipulation for 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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

That Plaintiff will have an additional ten days in which to file their Opposition to 

Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff's opposition will now be due on or 

Before April27, 2017 and Defendants' Reply will now be due on May 4, 2017. 

Dated: 

3 

The Honorable William H. Alsup 

Judge of the U.S. District Court 

Order re:

Stipulation for Extension of Time 

April 17, 2017.