From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Palmdale v. California High-Speed Rail Auth.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 11, 2011
2:11 -CV-01808-GEB-GGH (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011)

Opinion

2:11 -CV-01808-GEB-GGH

08-11-2011

CITY OF PALMDALE, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC AGENCY; ROELOF VAN ARK, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER; AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants.

Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson Deborah J. Fox Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Palmdale OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Deputy Attorney General Amy J. Winn Attorneys for State Defendants


KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672

Attorney General of California

WILLIAM L. CARTER, State Bar No. 59215

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

AMY J. WINN, State Bar No. 142421

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys fordefendants the California High-Speed

Rail Authority and Roelof van Ark, Chief Executive

Officer of the California High-Speed Rail Authority

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Local Rules 143 and 144

Trial Date N/A

Originally filed in the United States District

Court for the Central District of California,

Case No. LACV11-5545 R (MANx)/Transfer

The parties to the above matter, through their attorneys of record, stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS the Court sua sponte requested briefing via an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") on subject matter jurisdiction by order dated August 2, 2011 and the hearing on this OSC is scheduled for August 29, 2011;

WHEREAS the parties had earlier stipulated on July 18, 2001 and without leave of court to extend the time for defendants to respond to the Complaint to August 26, 2011;

WHEREAS the parties believe it would serve the best interests of the parties and the court to extend the time for defendants to respond to the Complaint until after the Court has ruled with respect to the OSC referenced above;

THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed that defendants shall have two weeks from the date the Court rules on the question of subject matter jurisdiction to file responses to the Complaint.

Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson

Deborah J. Fox

Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Palmdale

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Deputy Attorney General Amy J. Winn

Attorneys for State Defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

City of Palmdale v. California High-Speed Rail Auth.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 11, 2011
2:11 -CV-01808-GEB-GGH (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011)
Case details for

City of Palmdale v. California High-Speed Rail Auth.

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF PALMDALE, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY, A…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 11, 2011

Citations

2:11 -CV-01808-GEB-GGH (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011)