From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Righetti v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 30, 2011
CASE NO.3:11-CV-02717-EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO.3:11-CV-02717-EMC

11-30-2011

GERALD S. RIGHETTI, Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.

JOHN SUPPLE (#94582) ROBERT DEERING (#258043) ROBERT D. SANFORD (#129790) SUPPLE & CANVEL, LLP Attorneys for Defendant NEIL RICHMAN, M.D.


JOHN SUPPLE (#94582)
ROBERT DEERING (#258043)
ROBERT D. SANFORD (#129790)
SUPPLE & CANVEL, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
NEIL RICHMAN, M.D.

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT [L.R. 6-

1(a).]


Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen

Pursuant to the United States District Court, Northern District of California Local Rule Rule 6-1(a) and 6-2, Plaintiff Gerald Righetti and Defendant Neil Richman, M.D. stipulate and request that the Court order that Dr. Richman shall have until fourteen dates after the next Case Management Conference, currently set for January 3, 2013, to respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

As required by Local Rule 6-2, the parties agree that the extension is necessary since the Court granted Plaintiff until January 14, 2013 to file an amended complaint (Docket No. 80) and the Second Amended Complaint does not allege any new facts as to Dr. Richman. By January 14, 2013, Plaintiff will either file a dismissal as to Dr. Richman or an amended complaint alleging new facts as to Dr. Richman. This is the first extension of time requested to respond to the Second Amended Complaint and will not affect the current schedule of the action.

Respectfully submitted,

SUPPLE & CANVEL, LLP

By: _______________

Robert D. Sanford

Attorney for Defendant

NEIL RICHMAN, M.D.

O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP

By: _______________

MEGHAN WOODSOME

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned, Robert D. Sanford, attests under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United Stated that I obtained the concurrence of Meghan Woodsome in the filing of this Stipulation and that I have a record supporting this concurrence. /s Robert D. Sanford

Attorney for Plaintiff

GERALD S. RIGHETTI

SO ORDERED:


Summaries of

Righetti v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 30, 2011
CASE NO.3:11-CV-02717-EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)
Case details for

Righetti v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.

Case Details

Full title:GERALD S. RIGHETTI, Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS…

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

Date published: Nov 30, 2011

Citations

CASE NO.3:11-CV-02717-EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011)