From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CTIA v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 21, 2011
Case No. C10-03224 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. C10-03224 WHA

11-21-2011

CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION®, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, Defendant.

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137 VINCE CHHABRIA, State Bar #208557 Deputy City Attorneys Attorneys for Defendant THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA


DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney

WAYNE SNODGRASS, State Bar #148137

VINCE CHHABRIA, State Bar #208557

Deputy City Attorneys

Attorneys for Defendant

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

CALIFORNIA

STIPULATED APPLICATION TO CONTINUE

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S

FEES AND DUE DATES FOR OPPOSITION

AND REPLY PURSUANT TO CIV. L.R. 7-7(a)

AND CIV. L.R. 7-7(d); [PROPOSED] ORDER

Before: Judge William H. Alsup

450 Golden Gate Avenue

Courtroom 9, 19th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Trial Date: None set

STIPULATED APPLICATION

Plaintiff CTIA's Motion for Attorney's Fees in the above-captioned action is set for December 15, 2011 at 8:00 a.m. The City's response to this Motion is presently due November 28, 2011. Undersigned counsel for the City will be unable to attend adquately to the response by that date, both because of the time involved in responding to CTIA's emergency request for a stay pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit, and because of pre-arranged vacation plans over the Thanksgiving holiday thereafter. Because a response to CTIA's fee motion requires familiarity with the details of the litigation, and because undersigned counsel for the City is the only attorney for the City familiar with these details, finding substitute counsel to respond to CTIA's motion is not practical. Accordingly, the parties have met and conferred and, subject to this Court approval, have agreed that the hearing on CTIA's motion should be continued to January 5, 2012 at 8:00 a.m., with the City's opposition being due on December 13, 2011 and with CTIA's reply being due on December 22, 2011.

VINCE CHHABRIA

Attorney for Defendant

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

CALIFORNIA

CRAIG E. STEWART

Attorney for Plaintiff

CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION

**pursuant to GO 45, the electronic signatory has

obtained approval from this signatory.

ORDER

The parties' request to continue Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees shall take place on January 5, 2012 at 8:00 a.m. Defendant's opposition to this motion shall be filed no later than December 13, 2011, and Plaintiff's reply shall be filed no later than December 22, 2011.

William Alsup

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

CTIA v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 21, 2011
Case No. C10-03224 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011)
Case details for

CTIA v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco

Case Details

Full title:CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION®, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 21, 2011

Citations

Case No. C10-03224 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011)