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: _______________
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