Opinion
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01440-LJO-MJS
01-11-2012
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 ofCalifornia; STEPHEN LINDLEY, in His Official Capacity as Acting Chief for the California Department of Justice, and DOES 110, Defendants.
C. D. Michel Attorney for Plaintiffs Kimberly Granger (as approved on 1/10/12) Attorney for Defendants
C. D. Michel - S.B.N. 144258
Sean A. Brady - S.B.N. 262007
MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
PLEADING DEADLINES AND ORDER
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), 15(a)(1)(B);
Local Rules 143-144)
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 Kamala Harris and Stephen Lindley (collectively "Defendants"), through their respective attorneys of record, hereby jointly stipulate to extend the deadline for Defendants' submission of a responsive pleading in this matter, and request an order from the Court for an extension of Plaintiffs' deadline to file a First Amended Complaint in accordance with the stipulated schedule set forth herein.
II.
RECITALS/GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint in this matter on August 25, 2011;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs effected service upon Defendants on December 22, 2011 because they were awaiting resolution of California Senate Bill 819 (Leno, 2011-2012) ("SB 819"), due to its potential to impact Plaintiffs' claims;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs intend to file an Amended Complaint in this matter due to the passage of SB 819;
WHEREAS, Defendants' Answer to the initial Complaint in this matter or other responsive pleading must be filed on or before January 12, 2012;
WHEREAS, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 15(a), Plaintiffs are required to file their Amended Complaint by January 12, 2012 - the same day by which Defendants' Answer or other responsive pleading to the initial Complaint is due - or, Plaintiffs must wait until 21 days after service of Defendants' response to the initial Complaint in this matter to file their Amended Complaint unless written consent of the opposing party or the Court is obtained;
WHEREAS, Local Rule 144(a) of this Court allows a 28-day extension of time for responding to complaints and certain other documents, and all parties agree that Defendants should be allowed this extension;
WHEREAS, Local Rule 144(a) also provides 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;"
WHEREAS, neither party has obtained an extension of time relating to any matter for which this extension is sought;
WHEREAS, both parties to this action seek to conserve judicial resources and time by attempting to avoid the need for this court to consider future amendments to pleadings;
WHEREAS, both parties to this action likewise seek to keep the costs of litigation low;
AND WHEREAS, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. Defendants shall be allowed a 28-day extension of time to file their Answer or other responsive pleading in accordance with Local Rule 144(a) whether to Plaintiffs' Complaint or Amended Complaint.
2. Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint on or before Thursday, February 9, 2012, or as the court otherwise deems convenient.
3. Defendants shall file their Answer or other responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint within 28 days of it being filed, or as the court otherwise deems convenient.
The parties hereby jointly request that this Court grant the relief sought by this stipulation.
MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
_________________
C. D. Michel
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Deputy Attorney General
Kimberly Granger
(as approved on 1/10/12)
Attorney for Defendants
ORDER
The stipulation of the parties is approved. IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE