IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 3:17-cv WHA Document 170 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:17-cv VC Document 171 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:18-cv RSL Document 125 Filed 09/13/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:18-cv RS Document 30 Filed 06/18/18 Page 1 of 6

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOTCONNECTAFRICA TRUST,

Case 3:17-cv WHA Document 67 Filed 12/14/17 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:13-cv SC Document 39 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petitioners, Real Parties in Interest.

Case 3:17-cv WHA Document 193 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 6

Case 3:17-cv WHA Document 269 Filed 05/31/18 Page 1 of 17

Case 1:18-cv JFK Document 62 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 6

Case 4:08-cv SBA Document 180 Filed 03/03/2009 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No TODD S. GLASSEY AND MICHAEL E. MCNEIL,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASE NOS , -1307, -1309, -1310, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Case 4:09-cv CW Document 579 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 5

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 424 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees

Appeal No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Bradley Berentson, et al. Brian Perryman,

Case 3:17-cv VC Document 207 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

March 11, Re: Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp. et al., No Panel: Judges Farris, Reinhardt & Tashima

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 15, 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

NOS , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNDER SEAL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

Case 3:17-cv WHA Document 240 Filed 05/10/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 613 Filed 05/07/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv L-NLS Document 60 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 3

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. DAVID JACOBS; GARY HINDES, Appellants,

UNITED STATE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs - Appellants, Defendants - Appellees.

Case: Document: 26-1 Filed: 12/04/2014 Pages: 6 NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) )

Case 4:12-cv A Document 41 Filed 01/03/13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRI NORTHERN DISTRICT OF T FORT WORTH DIVISION ORDER

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,

Case3:06-md VRW Document738-5 Filed07/07/10 Page1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

PlainSite. Legal Document

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case: , 08/27/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 126-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

United States District Court

1 The parties to this action, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to. 2 the following:

CITY OF OAKLAND OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

Case 4:06-cv CW Document 81 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TELES AG,

Case4:10-cv CW Document205 Filed11/02/12 Page1 of 6

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case: , 03/23/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 55-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PlainSite. Legal Document. New York Southern District Court Case No. 1:13-md In re: North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litigation.

Case 9:18-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2018 Page 1 of 8

Case: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:12-cv SVW-PLA Document 21 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:204

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 19 Filed: 06/13/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:901

Case: , 11/17/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 36, Page 1 of 12 No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AS MODIFIED. Attorneys for Plaintiff, STERLING SAVINGS BANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ROME DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Case3:15-cv VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8

Case 3:17-cv RS Document 380 Filed 04/19/18 Page 1 of 5

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 218 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 4

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Nos and IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT United States Courthouse 219 S Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois DOCKETING STATEMENT

U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15-cv JD

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 43 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

JOINT MOTION TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26(b) and 10th Cir. R. 27.5, the parties jointly

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case3:13-cv CRB Document25 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH, TEXAS

Case 3:06-cv JSW Document 122 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 1 of 15

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Case: /09/2014 ID: DktEntry: 52-1 Page: 1 of 2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Nos and UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 3:13-cv SV Document13 FUec101/22/14 Pagel of 7

Case 3:15-cv JST Document 90 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 22 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription:

Case: 18-16663, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096191, DktEntry: 23-1, Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation, and The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker; and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation, and The People of California, acting by and through the San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, No. 18-16663 D.C. No. 3:17-cv-06011-WHA D.C. No. 3:17-cv-06012-WHA U.S. District Court for Northern California, San Francisco PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS CITY OF OAKLAND AND CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO S JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. B.P. P.L.C., a public limited company of England and Wales; CHEVRON CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; CONOCOPHILLIPS, a Delaware corporation; EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation; ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, a public limited company of England and Wales; and DOES, 1 through 10, Defendants-Appellees.

Case: 18-16663, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096191, DktEntry: 23-1, Page 2 of 4 JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) and Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2, Plaintiffs-Appellants City of Oakland and City and County of San Francisco respectfully file this joint motion for a 77-day extension of time for their consolidated Opening Brief in these appeals. Neither the City of Oakland nor the City and County of San Francisco have previously sought any extensions of time for these briefs. Defendants-Appellees have not consented to the requested extension. As described in the attached Declaration of Michael Rubin, this motion is based on a showing of diligence and substantial need. Dated: November 21, 2018 Respectfully submitted, Maria Bee Erin Bernstein OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY One Frank Ogawa Plaza 6th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Yvonne Meré Matthew Goldberg SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY S OFFICE Fox Plaza 7th Floor 1390 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 1

Case: 18-16663, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096191, DktEntry: 23-1, Page 3 of 4 /s/ Michael Rubin Michael Rubin Barbara J. Chisholm ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Victor M. Sher Matthew K. Edling SHER EDLING LLP 100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410 San Francisco, CA 94104 2

Case: 18-16663, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096191, DktEntry: 23-1, Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 21, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing Joint Motion for Extension of Time and the accompanying Declaration of Michael Rubin with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. Dated: November 21, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Michael Rubin Michael Rubin 3

Case: 18-16663, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096191, DktEntry: 23-2, Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation, and The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker; and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a Municipal Corporation, and The People of California, acting by and through the San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, No. 18-16663 D.C. No. 3:17-cv-06011-WHA D.C. No. 3:17-cv-06012-WHA U.S. District Court for Northern California, San Francisco DECLARATION OF MICHAEL RUBIN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. B.P. P.L.C., a public limited company of England and Wales; CHEVRON CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; CONOCOPHILLIPS, a Delaware corporation; EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation; ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, a public limited company of England and Wales; and DOES, 1 through 10, Defendants-Appellees.

Case: 18-16663, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096191, DktEntry: 23-2, Page 2 of 6 I, Michael Rubin, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am a member in good standing of the bar of the State of California, a partner at the law firm of Altshuler Berzon LLP, and one of the counsel of record for Plaintiffs-Appellants City of Oakland and City and County of San Francisco in the above-captioned appeal. 2. The above-captioned appeal arises out of a dismissal of two cases brought originally in California Superior Court by the City of Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco, and by The People of the State of California acting by and through the City Attorneys of Oakland and San Francisco (collectively, Cities ), alleging that Defendants-Appellees B.P. P.L.C. et al. substantially contributed to the public nuisance of global warming and should be held responsible for the costs of abating the harms associated with the resulting sea level rise. The District Court (Alsup, J.) related the two cases and subsequently denied the Cities motions to remand the cases to state court. The District Court further granted Defendants-Appellees motion to dismiss the amended complaints and granted the motions of four Defendants-Appellees to dismiss the complaints for lack of personal jurisdiction. The District Court entered judgment on July 27, 2018. The City of Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco separately appealed the District Court s judgment. 3. The issues raised in the court below were substantial, and the briefing 1

Case: 18-16663, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096191, DktEntry: 23-2, Page 3 of 6 on the issues in this appeal was voluminous. Defendants-Appellees notice of removal is 32 pages and alleges seven purported bases for federal jurisdiction. Briefing on the removal question alone totaled 135 pages between the parties, excluding exhibits. In addition, the motion to dismiss briefing totaled 208 pages, excluding exhibits. The personal jurisdiction briefing totaled 203 pages, excluding exhibits. 4. On September 4, 2018, this Court docketed the appeals and set December 10, 2018 as the due date for Plaintiffs-Appellants to file their Opening Briefs. The Cities have not previously sought any extension of time. 5. The Cities intend to file a single, consolidated Opening Brief in this appeal. The Cities jointly request that the deadline for the Opening Brief be extended by 77 days. If the Court grants this extension, Plaintiffs-Appellants Opening Brief would be due on February 25, 2019. (A 75-day extension would result in the Opening Brief being due on Saturday, February 23, 2019.) 6. Earlier this week, my law firm and the San Francisco law firm of Sher Edling LLP were retained by the Cities to co-counsel with them on this appeal. Under the supervision of the Oakland City Attorney and the San Francisco City Attorney, my partner Barbara J. Chisholm and I will have principal responsibility for researching and drafting the Cities Opening Brief. The requested extension of time is necessary because, as new counsel, we will need time to review the record, 2

Case: 18-16663, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096191, DktEntry: 23-2, Page 4 of 6 conduct the appropriate research, and prepare the Opening Brief in coordination with the Oakland City Attorney and the San Francisco City Attorney and with attorneys in their offices. 7. My office has been diligent in beginning work on this appeal, but we are not in a position to complete work on the Opening Brief by December 10, 2018. Reviewing the legal and factual materials and arguments will take substantial time. The volume of briefing and the complexity of the issues as well as the numerous other professional obligations that Ms. Chisholm and I have between now and the end of the year support the requested 77-day extension of time. My additional responsibilities include: Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration re Class Certification (with leave of court) in Blair v. Rent-A-Center, N.D. Cal., November 26, 2018. Oral Argument in Opposition to Motion for Summary Adjudication in Sanchez v. McDonald s, Los Angeles Superior Court No. BC499888, December 3, 2018. Public Comments on NLRB s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning The Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status, due December 13, 2018. 3

Case: 18-16663, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096191, DktEntry: 23-2, Page 5 of 6 Oral Argument on Appeal in Chang v. Winklevoss, Massachusetts Appeals Court No. 2018-P-0329, December 13, 2018. Plaintiffs Answering Brief in Ibarra v. Wells Fargo Bank, Ninth Circuit No. 18-55626, due December 14, 2018. Appellants Reply Brief in City of San Francisco, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth, No. 02-18-00106-CV, due December 17, 2018. Plaintiffs Reply Brief in Oman v. Delta Airlines, California Supreme Court No. S248726, due January 4, 2019. 8. Ms. Chisholm s additional responsibilities between now and the end of the year include: Pre-trial rebuttal expert reports in NRDC v. Zinke, E.D. Cal. No. 1:05- cv-01207-ljo-epg, due December 5, 2018. Six additional expert depositions in NRDC v. Zinke, E.D. Cal. No. 1:05-cv-01207-LJO-EPG, to be held between December 5, 2018 and January 18, 2019. Public Comments on NLRB s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning The Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status, due December 13, 2018. 4

Case: 18-16663, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096191, DktEntry: 23-2, Page 6 of 6 Appellants Reply Brief in City of San Francisco, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth, No. 02-18-00106-CV, due December 17, 2018. Pre-trial filing re: legal and factual issues for trial in NRDC v. Zinke, E.D. Cal. No. Cal. No. 1:05-cv-01207-LJO-EPG, due December 21, 2018. Plaintiffs Reply Brief in Oman v. Delta Airlines, California Supreme Court No. S248726, due January 4, 2019. Arbitration hearing in two matters involving UNITE HERE Local 30 and Westin Hotels, on a date yet to be scheduled, but prior to January 10, 2019. 9. On November 15, 2018, San Francisco deputy city attorney Matthew Goldberg emailed counsel for Defendants-Appellees to ask whether Defendants- Appellees object to this request for an extension. They responded that Defendants- Appellees declined to consent to the requested extension of the deadline for the Cities Opening Brief to February 25, 2019. I declare that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 21st day of November 2018 at Palm Beach, Florida. /s/michael Rubin Michael Rubin 5