From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ager v. Hedgpeth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Mar 4, 2013
C 11-6642 EJD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013)

Opinion

C 11-6642 EJD

03-04-2013

DANIEL AGER, individually and as a Successor in Interest to the Estate of Alan Ager, Kathryn Ager and Elizabeth Ager, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, ET AL., Defendants.

KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California THOMAS S. PATTERSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General SAHAR NAYERI Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants A. Hedgpeth, B. Hedrick, and D. Spencer


KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
THOMAS S. PATTERSON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
SAHAR NAYERI
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
A. Hedgpeth, B. Hedrick, and D. Spencer

STIPULATION EXTENDING

DEADLINE FOR DISPOSITIVE

MOTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER


Judge: The Honorable Edward J.

Davila

Action Filed: December 23, 2011

On February 22, 2013, Plaintiffs moved to modify the Court's Scheduling Order to change the current deadline for filing a dispositive motion from March 1, 2013 to May 3, 2013. In light of Plaintiffs' pending motion, the parties stipulate and respectfully request under Northern District Civil Local Rule 6-2 that the Court extend the current March 1, 2013 deadline for a dispositive motion to seven days after rules on Plaintiffs' motion, if Plaintiffs' motion is denied.

As discussed in detail in counsel's accompanying declaration, filing a dispositive motion by March 1, 2013 will be highly prejudicial to Defendants because it is currently unclear whether Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to amend their complaint and what issues Defendants need to address in their dispositive motion. Without this information, Defendants cannot properly address Plaintiffs' claims and allegations.

In light of the foregoing, the parties jointly request that the current March 1, 2013 deadline for filing a dispositive motion be changed to seven days after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' motion to modify in the event that the motion is denied, and the Scheduling Order remains unchanged.

________________________

John Houston Scott

Counsel for Plaintiffs Daniel Ager, Kathryn

Ager, and Elizabeth Ager

________________________

Sahar Nayeri

Deputy Attorney General

Counsel for Defendants A. Hedgpeth, B. Hedrick,

and D. Spencer

Per the parties' stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________

Honorable Edward J. Davila

United States District Judge
SF2012401126
20674506.doc

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case Name: D. Ager v. Hedgpeth, et al.

No. C 11-6642 EJD

I hereby certify that on March 1, 2013, I electronically filed the following documents with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system: STIPULATION EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DISPOSITIVE MOTION;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
DECLARATION OF S. NAYERI SUPPORTING STIPULATION EXTENDING
DEADLINE FOR FILING DISPOSITIVE MOTION
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 1, 2013, at San Francisco, California.

M. Luna

Signature

M. Luna

Declarant
20675609.doc


Summaries of

Ager v. Hedgpeth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Mar 4, 2013
C 11-6642 EJD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013)
Case details for

Ager v. Hedgpeth

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL AGER, individually and as a Successor in Interest to the Estate of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Mar 4, 2013

Citations

C 11-6642 EJD (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2013)