Opinion
DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney, CHERYL ADAMS, Chief Trial Deputy, PETER J. KEITH, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (including SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT), GREG SUHR, CRAIG TIFFE, and ERIC REBOLI.
ARNOLDO CASILLAS, ESQ., DENISSE O. GASTÉLUM, ESQ., CASILLAS, MORENO & ASSOCIATES, Montebello, CA, JONATHAN D. MELROD, ESQ., Sebastopol, CA, WILLIAM M. SIMPICH, JR., ESQ., Oakland, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, JUAN PEREZ, MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ.
STIPULATION WAIVING SERVICE OF SUMMONS, EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, AND CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FROM JULY 21, 2015 TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2015; DECLARATION IN SUPPORT; ORDER
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.
STIPULATION
The parties to this action, Plaintiffs ESTATE OF AMILCAR PEREZ LOPEZ, JUAN PEREZ, MARGARITA LOPEZ PEREZ and Defendants GREG SUHR, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (also sued as SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT), CRAIG TIFFE, and ERIC REBOLI, through their respective counsel, stipulate as follows:
1. Waiver of service of summons by all unserved defendants.
Defendants CRAIG TIFFE and ERIC REBOLI waive service of summons pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(d), as if the request for waiver were mailed on June 18, 2015, such that the due date for a response to the Complaint on behalf of each of them is due on August 17, 2015.
2. Extension of time to respond to Complaint for the previously served defendants, to August 17, 2015.
Under Northern District Civil Local Rule No. 6-1, the time to file a response to the Complaint on behalf of defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (also sued as the SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT) and GREG SUHR is extended to and including August 17, 2015. That is the same date that a response is due from the remaining defendants (CRAIG TIFFE and ERIC REBOLI), who have agreed to waive service of summons. This extension will not alter any event or deadline already fixed by Court order and it does not involve papers required to be filed or lodged with the Court other than an initial response to the Complaint; however, as discussed below, the parties have made a stipulated request to continue the case management conference for reasons that include permitting the served defendants, as well as the defendants who have agreed to waive service of summons, sufficient time to respond to the Complaint.
3. Continuance of initial case management conference to September 8, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.
The current initial case management conference is set for July 21, 2015. The parties request an order continuing the initial case management conference to Tuesday September 8, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., and likewise continuing the pre-case management conference deadlines based on the new case management conference date. Good cause exists for this extension as follows: (1) defense counsel will be on a pre-planned, prepaid vacation on the currently set date of July 21; and further, (2) the requested extension will allow all parties to appear in this action and will allow counsel sufficient time to meet and confer on the matters specified by the Federal Rules, Local Rules, and Standing Orders. There have been no previous requests for a continuance.
The parties respectfully request that the above stipulation be entered as the Court's Order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER
I, Peter J. Keith declare as follows:
1. I am a Deputy City Attorney in the Office of the San Francisco City Attorney, counsel of record to Defendants GREG SUHR, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (also sued as SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT), CRAIG TIFFE, and ERIC REBOLI. I have personal knowledge of the contents of this declaration, except where indicated otherwise, and I could and would testify competently thereto if called upon to do so.
2. Good cause for continuance of case management conference. I have a pre-planned, prepaid vacation on the currently scheduled date of July 21. This vacation was scheduled and paid for before any defendants were served. In addition, an extension is sought until September 8, 2015 to allow all parties to appear in this action and to allow counsel sufficient time to meet and confer on the matters specified by the Federal Rules, Local Rules, and Standing Orders.
3. Previous time modifications. No previous time modifications have been requested.
4. Effect of the proposed schedule on the schedule for the case. The proposed schedule will result in postponement of the initial case management conference and the dates associated with it, but counsel do not expect the extension to affect the parties' requested deadlines for discovery, motions, trial, or other matters. In addition, the parties have alreadly worked together to eliminate delay, as shown by the remaining unserved defendants' agreement to waive service of summons so that all parties will be brought in to this action shortly.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed June 23, 2015 at San Francisco, California.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION AND GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.