From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bauer v. Harris

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO BRANCH COURTHOUSE
Apr 20, 2012
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS

04-20-2012

BARRY BAUER, STEPHEN WARKENTIN, NICOLE FERRY, LELAND ADLEY, JEFFREY HACKER, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC, CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION, HERB BAUER SPORTING GOODS, INC., Plaintiffs v. KAMALA HARRIS, in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General For the State of California; STEPHEN LINDLEY, in His Official Capacity as Acting Chief for the California Department of Justice, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. C. D. Michel Deputy Attorney General Susan K. Smith


C. D. Michel - S.B.N. 144258

Sean A. Brady - S.B.N. 262007

MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

180 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200

Long Beach, CA 90802

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF MOTION TO STAY HEARING

DATE AND EXTEND ASSOCIATED DEADLINES


AND


ORDER THEREON


(Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A); Local Rules 144, 230(f))

I.


INTRODUCTION

The parties, Plaintiffs Barry Bauer, Stephen Warkentin, Nicole Ferry, Leland Adley, Jeffrey Hacker, National Rifle Association of America, Inc., California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and Chief of the Firearms Bureau Stephen Lindley (collectively "Defendants"), through their respective attorneys of record, hereby jointly stipulate to continue the date of the hearing for Defendants' Motion to Stay and to extend the remaining deadlines for moving papers related to that motion in accordance with the stipulated schedule set forth herein.

II.


RECITALS/GROUNDS FOR RELIEF

WHEREAS, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in this matter pending the Ninth Circuit en banc panel's decision in Nordyke v. King, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011), on March 22, 2012;

WHEREAS, in that motion, Defendants state they intend to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings but wish to see if the anticipated Nordyke opinion affects their legal arguments in their motion;

WHEREAS, based on the oral arguments that occurred on March 19, 2012 in Nordyke, all parties to this action filed a joint stipulation on April 2, 2012, asking this court to continue the hearing date on Defendants's motion to stay, as well as all deadlines associated therewith, as follows:

1.The hearing on Defendants' Motion to Stay shall be moved to Monday, May 25, 2012.

2. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Stay shall be due on or before April 23, 2012.

3. Defendants Reply in support of their Motion shall be due on or before May 7, 2012.

WHEREAS, this Court issued an Order accepting the parties' proposed dates in their stipulation on January 11, 2012.

WHEREAS, since this Court's acceptance of the parties' referenced stipulation, the en banc panel in Nordyke issued an order on April 4, 2012, deferring submission of the case for 45 days (i.e., May 19) and referring the parties to the Circuit Mediation Office for mediation in the hopes of settlement of the controversy Nordyke v. King, 2012 WL1110131 (April 4, 2012) (No. 07-15763).

WHEREAS, all parties to this action seek to keep the costs of litigation low;

WHEREAS, all parties likewise wish to conserve judicial time and resources;

WHEREAS, all parties believe there is more benefit than burden to this Court and parties by awaiting the 45-day deference of Nordyke's submission to see if Defendants' Motion to Stay does not need to be litigated by a possible disposition of Nordyke at that time, all parties believe it is in the interest of judicial economy and conservation of the parties' resources to again continue the hearing date on Defendants' Motion to Stay and filing dates related thereto until after the 45-day deference of Nordyke's submission;

WHEREAS, Local Rule 144(a) of this Court allows a 28-day extension of time for responding to complaints and certain other documents, but states that "[a]ll other extensions of time must be approved by the Court";

WHEREAS, FRCP 6(b)(1)(A) allows for the extension of time for good cause, "with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires";

AND WHEREAS, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:

4. The hearing on Defendants' Motion to Stay shall be moved to Friday, June 22, 2012.

5. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Stay shall be due on or before June 8, 2012.

6. Defendants Reply in support of their Motion shall be due on or before June 15, 2012.

The parties hereby jointly request that this Court grant the relief sought by this stipulation.

MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

C. D. Michel

Deputy Attorney General

Susan K. Smith

ORDER

Good cause appearing, the Parties' Stipulation is accepted and adopted as the Order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Y. Geng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Bauer v. Harris

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO BRANCH COURTHOUSE
Apr 20, 2012
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2012)
Case details for

Bauer v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:BARRY BAUER, STEPHEN WARKENTIN, NICOLE FERRY, LELAND ADLEY, JEFFREY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO BRANCH COURTHOUSE

Date published: Apr 20, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2012)