STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Initial Case Management Conference; Declaration of Ryan Marcroft in Support filed by Jacob A Appelsmith, Edmund Brown, Jr, William Haraf, Kamala Harris, Traci Stevens, Robert Venchiarutti. (Marcroft, Ryan) (Filed on 1/5/2015)
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Page 1 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document56 Filed01/05/15 Page1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MARC A. LEFORESTIER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
RYAN MARCROFT
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 230952
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 323-5313
Fax: (916) 324-8835
E-mail: Ryan.Marcroft@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for All Defendants
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
13
14
THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Case No. 5:11-cv-05496-HRL
v.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE INITIAL
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER;
DECLARATION OF RYAN MARCROFT
IN SUPPORT
ROBERT VENCHIARUTTI, in his official
capacity as Deputy Commissioner of the
California Department of Financial
Institutions; TEVEIA R. BARNES, in her
Judge:
The Honorable Howard R. Lloyd
official capacity as Commissioner of the
Trial Date:
Not Set
California Department of Financial
Action Filed: November 14, 2011
Institutions; BRIAN P. KELLY, in his
official capacity as Acting Secretary of the
California Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency; JACOB A.
APPELSMITH, in his official capacity as
Senior Advisor to the Governor of the State
of California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,
in his official capacity as Governor of the
State of California; and KAMALA
HARRIS, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of California,
Defendants.
27
28
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference (5:11-cv-05496-HRL)Page 2 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document56 Filed01/05/15 Page2 of 4
1
Plaintiff Think Computer Corporation and Defendants HEREBY STIPULATE pursuant to
2
Local Rule 6-2 to request continuance of the initial Case Management Conference (CMC). The
3
parties request that the CMC, presently scheduled for February 24, 2015, be continued to March
4
3, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose.
5
Dated: January 5, 2015
Respectfully Submitted,
6
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MARC A. LEFORESTIER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
7
8
9
10
/s/ Ryan Marcroft
RYAN MARCROFT
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for All Defendants
11
12
13
ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
14
15
/s/ Michael Aschenbrener
MICHAEL ASCHENBRENER
Counsel for Plaintiff
Think Computer Corporation
16
17
18
19
20
21
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The initial Case Management
Conference is continued to March 3, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose.
22
23
Dated: ________________________
___________________________________
Howard R. Lloyd
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
1
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference (5:11-cv-05496-HRL)Page 3 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document56 Filed01/05/15 Page3 of 4
1
DECLARATION OF RYAN MARCROFT
2
3
I, Ryan Marcroft, declare as follows:
4
1.
I am a Deputy Attorney General and counsel of record for all Defendants. I
5
submit this declaration pursuant to Local Rule 6-2 in support of the parties’ Stipulation to
6
Continue Initial Case Management Conference.
7
2.
The following time modifications were previously made concerning the initial
8
CMC. On January 3, 2012, the Defendants filed an unopposed motion for administrative relief to
9
continue the CMC from January 10 to January 31, 2012. (Docket No. 13 at 2.) The Court
10
granted the motion. (Docket No. 14.) Then, on January 12, 2012, the parties jointly stipulated to
11
extend the Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the initial complaint to January 23,
12
2012, and the Court approved the stipulation. (Docket No. 18.) The Court also continued the
13
CMC to February 28, 2012. (Id.) On January 23, 2012, the parties stipulated that the Plaintiff
14
would file an amended complaint by January 31, 2012. The Court approved the stipulation and
15
sua sponte continued the CMC to April 17, 2012. (Docket No 22 at 3.) Plaintiff filed its First
16
Amended Complaint on January 31, 2012. (Docket No. 23.) The Defendants filed their motion
17
to dismiss on February 14, 2012 (Docket No. 24), the Plaintiff filed its response and opposition
18
on February 28, 2012 (Docket No. 30), and the Defendants filed their reply on March 6, 2012
19
(Docket No. 31). Thereafter, the Court sua sponte continued the CMC to May 29, 2012. (Docket
20
No. 32.) Plaintiff moved to shorten time to the CMC, but the Court denied the motion. (Docket
21
No. 35.) After the hearing on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the parties stipulated to
22
continue the CMC to a date to be set by the Court contemporaneous with the Court’s ruling on the
23
motion. (Docket No. 42.) Plaintiff moved to change the time of the CMC. (Docket No. 53.)
24
The Court granted the motion and set the initial CMC for February 24, 2015. (Docket No. 55.)
25
The parties’ joint case management statement is due on February 17, 2015.
26
3.
I have prepaid, nonrefundable, flight and hotel travel arrangements and am
27
scheduled to be out of State and unavailable between February 16, 2015 through February 24,
28
2015. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court continue the initial CMC for one week to
2
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference (5:11-cv-05496-HRL)Page 4 Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document56 Filed01/05/15 Page4 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
March 3, 2015.
4.
Extending the CMC for one week to March 3, 2015 would have no impact on the
current case schedule apart from the timing of the CMC itself.
I declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the United States of America.
6
7
8
9
Date: January 5, 2015
/s/ Ryan Marcroft
Ryan Marcroft
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference (5:11-cv-05496-HRL)
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document56 Filed01/05/15 Page1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MARC A. LEFORESTIER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
RYAN MARCROFT
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 230952
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 323-5313
Fax: (916) 324-8835
E-mail: Ryan.Marcroft@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for All Defendants
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
13
14
THINK COMPUTER CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Case No. 5:11-cv-05496-HRL
v.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE INITIAL
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER;
DECLARATION OF RYAN MARCROFT
IN SUPPORT
ROBERT VENCHIARUTTI, in his official
capacity as Deputy Commissioner of the
California Department of Financial
Institutions; TEVEIA R. BARNES, in her
Judge:
The Honorable Howard R. Lloyd
official capacity as Commissioner of the
Trial Date:
Not Set
California Department of Financial
Action Filed: November 14, 2011
Institutions; BRIAN P. KELLY, in his
official capacity as Acting Secretary of the
California Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency; JACOB A.
APPELSMITH, in his official capacity as
Senior Advisor to the Governor of the State
of California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,
in his official capacity as Governor of the
State of California; and KAMALA
HARRIS, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of California,
Defendants.
27
28
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference (5:11-cv-05496-HRL)
PDF Page 3
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document56 Filed01/05/15 Page2 of 4
1
Plaintiff Think Computer Corporation and Defendants HEREBY STIPULATE pursuant to
2
Local Rule 6-2 to request continuance of the initial Case Management Conference (CMC). The
3
parties request that the CMC, presently scheduled for February 24, 2015, be continued to March
4
3, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose.
5
Dated: January 5, 2015
Respectfully Submitted,
6
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MARC A. LEFORESTIER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
7
8
9
10
/s/ Ryan Marcroft
RYAN MARCROFT
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for All Defendants
11
12
13
ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
14
15
/s/ Michael Aschenbrener
MICHAEL ASCHENBRENER
Counsel for Plaintiff
Think Computer Corporation
16
17
18
19
20
21
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The initial Case Management
Conference is continued to March 3, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose.
22
23
Dated: ________________________
___________________________________
Howard R. Lloyd
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
1
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference (5:11-cv-05496-HRL)
PDF Page 4
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document56 Filed01/05/15 Page3 of 4
1
DECLARATION OF RYAN MARCROFT
2
3
I, Ryan Marcroft, declare as follows:
4
1.
I am a Deputy Attorney General and counsel of record for all Defendants. I
5
submit this declaration pursuant to Local Rule 6-2 in support of the parties’ Stipulation to
6
Continue Initial Case Management Conference.
7
2.
The following time modifications were previously made concerning the initial
8
CMC. On January 3, 2012, the Defendants filed an unopposed motion for administrative relief to
9
continue the CMC from January 10 to January 31, 2012. (Docket No. 13 at 2.) The Court
10
granted the motion. (Docket No. 14.) Then, on January 12, 2012, the parties jointly stipulated to
11
extend the Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the initial complaint to January 23,
12
2012, and the Court approved the stipulation. (Docket No. 18.) The Court also continued the
13
CMC to February 28, 2012. (Id.) On January 23, 2012, the parties stipulated that the Plaintiff
14
would file an amended complaint by January 31, 2012. The Court approved the stipulation and
15
sua sponte continued the CMC to April 17, 2012. (Docket No 22 at 3.) Plaintiff filed its First
16
Amended Complaint on January 31, 2012. (Docket No. 23.) The Defendants filed their motion
17
to dismiss on February 14, 2012 (Docket No. 24), the Plaintiff filed its response and opposition
18
on February 28, 2012 (Docket No. 30), and the Defendants filed their reply on March 6, 2012
19
(Docket No. 31). Thereafter, the Court sua sponte continued the CMC to May 29, 2012. (Docket
20
No. 32.) Plaintiff moved to shorten time to the CMC, but the Court denied the motion. (Docket
21
No. 35.) After the hearing on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the parties stipulated to
22
continue the CMC to a date to be set by the Court contemporaneous with the Court’s ruling on the
23
motion. (Docket No. 42.) Plaintiff moved to change the time of the CMC. (Docket No. 53.)
24
The Court granted the motion and set the initial CMC for February 24, 2015. (Docket No. 55.)
25
The parties’ joint case management statement is due on February 17, 2015.
26
3.
I have prepaid, nonrefundable, flight and hotel travel arrangements and am
27
scheduled to be out of State and unavailable between February 16, 2015 through February 24,
28
2015. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court continue the initial CMC for one week to
2
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference (5:11-cv-05496-HRL)
PDF Page 5
Case5:11-cv-05496-HRL Document56 Filed01/05/15 Page4 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
March 3, 2015.
4.
Extending the CMC for one week to March 3, 2015 would have no impact on the
current case schedule apart from the timing of the CMC itself.
I declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury under the laws of
the United States of America.
6
7
8
9
Date: January 5, 2015
/s/ Ryan Marcroft
Ryan Marcroft
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Case Management Conference (5:11-cv-05496-HRL)
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Think Computer Corporation does not generate, alter, annotate, or summarize documents using artificial intelligence. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
