Opinion
KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, PETER A. MESHOT, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, VICKIE P. WHITNEY, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Dimiceli.
MARK R. BECKINGTON, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, EMMANUELLE SOICHET, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants Harris and Farrow.
ORDER GRANTING STATE DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
The Court, having considered Defendants' first request for an extension of time to file a response to the First Amended Complaint, and good cause appearing:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendants Dimiceli, Farrow, and Harris are granted an extension of time, up to and including August 24, 2015, to file and serve a response to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
STATE DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING; ORDER
Defendants R. Dimiceli, J. Farrow, and Attorney General Harris (collectively State Defendants) request a forty-five-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5). Defendant Dimiceli's responsive pleading is currently due on or before July 30, 2015, and Defendants Farrow and Harris' responsive pleading is currently due on or before July 29, 2015. Defendants seek to have one date for their responsive pleading and request a 45-day extension from the earlier date of July 29, 2015 in which to file it. Thus, if this request is granted, the State Defendants' responsive pleading will be due on or before September 12, 2015. The reasons for this request are set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Vickie P. Whitney.
DECLARATION
I, Vickie P. Whitney, declare:
1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in California and before this Court. I am a Deputy Attorney General with the Office of the Attorney General, and I represent Defendant Dimiceli in this action. Deputy Attorney General Emmanuelle S. Soichet represents Defendants Farrow and Harris. I am informed and believe that Ms. Soichet is also admitted to practice in California and before this Court.
2. The Office of the Attorney General received requests for representation by the State Defendants on or about July 14, 2015.
3. I was assigned to this matter on July 17, 2015, to represent Defendant Dimiceli. Ms. Soichet was assigned to this matter on July 20, 2015, to represent Defendants Farrow and Harris.
4. Defendant Dimiceli's response to the First Amended Complaint is currently due on July 30, 2015. Defendants Farrow and Harris' response to the First Amended Complaint is currently due on July 29, 2015.
5. The First Amended Complaint contains 299 paragraphs of allegations. In order to fully analyze and obtain necessary documents and coordinate a response to the First Amended Complaint, the State Defendants request an extension of time in which to file their response that is 45 days from the earlier of the current due dates (July 29, 2015), making their response due on or before September 12, 2015.
6. Defendants' counsel sought an extension via stipulation with Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Gorski, pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 144 (a). Mr. Gorski kindly agreed to an extension, but sought a concession from Defendants that they would not raise any challenge to jurisdiction as part of the Stipulation. The State Defendants were not willing to include this concession in the Stipulation at this early juncture, before they have had an opportunity to fully review and analyze the case. Further, Mr. Gorski was concerned that the Court would not know of the service being accomplished within the 120 days of his filing the action. Thus, the Defendants could not reasonably obtain a stipulation and are therefore requesting an extension of time from the Court, under Eastern District Local Rule 144(c).
7. This is the State Defendants' first request for an extension of time to respond to the First Amended Complaint, and is not sought for any improper purpose, but solely to permit counsel to receive and review the documentation necessary for the preparation of Defendants' singular response.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true.