From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

North Pacifica, Llc. v. City of Pacifica

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Feb 21, 2006
Case No. C 03-4108 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. C 03-4108.

February 21, 2006

JAQUELYNN C. POPE, SBN # 78600, WARSHAW POPE, Hermosa Beach, CA, KEITH M. FROMM, SBN # 73529, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, North Pacifica, LLC.

BENJAMIN WINIG, Attorney for Defendants.


STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR SANCTIONS MOTION; DECLARATION OF JAQUELYNN POPE


STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE

Pursuant to Local Civil Rules of Court, Rules 6.2 and 7.7(b), the parties hereto, North Pacifica LLC, and defendants James Vreeland and Peter DeJarnatt, by and through their respective counsel, Jaquelynn Pope of Warshaw Pope, and Benjamin Winig of McDonough Holland Allen, for the reasons set forth in the Declaration of Jaquelynn Pope, submitted herewith, hereby stipulate as follows:

The parties request that the hearing on the defendants' motion for sanctions be continued by order of the Court from February 24, 2006 to March 17, 2006.

DECLARATION OF JAQUELYNN POPE

I, JAQUELYNN POPE, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney, duly licensed and in good standing to practice before all the Courts of the State of California and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I am the attorney for plaintiff North Pacifica LLC.

2. Reason for the Continuance. The parties have agreed to stipulate to the request for the continuance in order to allow Robert Kalmbach, one of the two principals of North Pacifica, the plaintiff herein, to attend the hearing without disrupting his family vacation. Plaintiff has informed defendants that the week of February 20, 2006, is a school holiday week ("ski week") for Mr. Kalmbach's two children and Mr. Kalmbach and his family have planned to be in Lake Tahoe from February 21, 2006 until February 26, 2006. The within hearing was previously set for February 10, 2006, however, the court re-scheduled all the motions that had been set for that date to February 24, 2006. Mr. Kalmbach did not realize until the weekend of February 18, 2006 that "ski week" conflicted with the re-scheduled date.

3. If the February 24, 2006 date for the hearing is not re-scheduled, Mr. Kalmbach will disrupt his family vacation to fly back from Reno on Thursday evening in order to attend the hearing in San Francisco on Friday morning and then fly back to Reno on Friday afternoon to rejoin his family. In order to avoid this disruption to Mr. Kalmbach's family vacation, the parties have agreed to request that the Court continue the hearing date.

4. Previous Modifications to Schedule

There have been two prior date changes for the hearing:

(1) On December 8, 2005, the Court continued the hearing date from January 6, 2006 to February 10, 2006 in response to a prior Stipulated Request from the parties.

(2) On January 20, 2006 the Court re-scheduled all of the hearings on its calendar that had been set for the February 10, 2006 date to February 24, 2006.

5. Effect on Litigation Schedule

The requested continuance should not have any effect on the schedule of the case.

6. For the above reasons, North Pacifica asks that the Court grant the Stipulated Request of the parties and continue the defendants' Motion for Sanctions from February 24, 2006 to March 17, 2006.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and if called upon to do so I could and would testify competently thereto.

Executed this 21st day of February, 2006 in Hermosa Beach, California.

s/d ___________________ JAQUELYNN POPE

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATED REQUEST, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion for Sanctions is continued from February 24, 2006 to March 17, 2006.


Summaries of

North Pacifica, Llc. v. City of Pacifica

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Feb 21, 2006
Case No. C 03-4108 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006)
Case details for

North Pacifica, Llc. v. City of Pacifica

Case Details

Full title:NORTH PACIFICA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PACIFICA, et al. Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Feb 21, 2006

Citations

Case No. C 03-4108 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2006)

Citing Cases

North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica

For example, there are other conditions of approval that are the subject of a separate lawsuit before Judge…