TO THE HONORABLE TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, CHIEF JUSTICE, AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT:

Similar documents
Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 1OCECGO2 116 The Honorable Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Judge

PARKER, et al., THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., STIPULATION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF PURSUANT TO RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.

STIPULATION FOR JOINT APPENDIX. KAMALA D. HARRIs Attorney General of California. DOUGLAS J. WOODS Senior Assistant Attorney General

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiffs and Appellants, Defendants and Res ondents.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. Plaintiff{s),

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

MOTION TO STRIKE OPENING BRIEF; PROPOSED ORDER

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

Case3:09-cv RS Document78 Filed05/03/11 Page1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

vs. ) NOTICE OF RULING 14 )

FAX. IN TUE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUE STATE OF caiafornia INANDFORTHLCQLNTYOELOSANELES. EAST l)i$trict

COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 2. CALGUNS FOUNDATION INC., et al v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

2 STEPAN A. HAYTAYAN. 1 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California

RESPOND TO ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE. March 3, 2011

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF OPINION. Andre Torigian v. WT Capital Lender Services Case No. F (Fresno County Superior Court No.

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, California tel fax

copy 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff CALMAT CO. dba VTJLCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, WESTERN DIVISION 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

JOINT RULE 16(b)/26(f) REPORT

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

E-FILED 12/26/2017 4:20 PM FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT By: C. Cogburn, Deputy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:15-cr SVW Document 173 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:2023

1 Justice, on January 9, A copy of the Proof of Service of Summons is attached hereto. 4 Dated: January 27, 2015 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

DEC 1 i1z ) FOR DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) Time: 439-pm.3) C.D. Michel -

Jonathan Arvizu v. City of Pasadena Request for Publication Second District Case No.: B Superior Court Case No.: BC550929

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVID GENTRY, JAMES PARKER, MARK MID LAM, JAMES BASS, and CALGUNS SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

This matter came on regularly before this Court for hearings on October 7,2004 and on April

the unverified First Amended Complaint (the Complaint ) of plaintiffs MIKE SPITZER and

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

December 10, Cohen v. DIRECTV, No. S177734

Case 5:08-cv RMW Document 7 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO CITY ATTORNEY REPORT RE: COURT RULING

TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Case 3:09-cv IEG -BGS Document 55 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 5

August 3, Re: Request for Publication of Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker B (July 25, 2017)

SAMPLE FORM F NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Federal Pro Se Clinic CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

in furtherance of and in response to its Tentative Decision dated 1/4/2010 addressing various matters

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Part Description 1 5 pages 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order to Motion for Summary Judgment

CLAIM FOR MONEY OR DAMAGES r\eceiyeu WARNING liodesto CITY CLERK Be sure your claim is filed with the' -.. ment Code Section 910 et seq)

Case 2:14-cv WBS-EFB Document 14 Filed 08/07/14 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:18-cv R-AGR Document 7 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CINDY LEE GARCIA, an individual, Case No. CV MWF (VBKx) Plaintiff,

Sequoia Park Associates, a California limited partnership, Petitioner and Plaintiff,

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO DIVISION } } } } } } } } } } } } } } /

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

CON. KEhrlichjmbm.com. ECulleyjmbm.com. 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff CALMAT CO. dba VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY, WESTERN DIVISION 7

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CINDY LEE GARCIA, an individual, Case No. CV MWF (VBKx) Plaintiff,

Case 3:13-cv EMC Document 736 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE

Centex Homes v. Superior Court (City of San Diego)

No. S IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. KRISTIN M. PERRY et ai., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

Benjamin v. Google Inc. Doc. 45

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

CACJ CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE

ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVED Superior Court of California, County of Orange. 02/ at 11:58:07 AM

HAROLD P. STURGEON, Plaintiff and Petitioner, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents, and

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

Case 3:08-cv BEN-BLM Document 3 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 1 of 2

meyers nave A Commitment to Public Law

Case 2:09-cv DOC-RZ Document 72 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:992

IIAR CONN )14)R1) toliv

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SECOND APPELLATE DISTRlCT, DIVISION TWO. Petitioners and Appellants, Respondent and Appellee,

In the Supreme Court of the State of California

TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT YOUR INTERESTS!

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SELF-HELP CENTER ANSWERING A BREACH OF CONTRACT COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND DIVISION)

DISTRICT COURT, FAMILY DIVISION CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

555 1i h Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, California tel (510} fax (510}

By S. Lee, Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 01/28/17 Page 1 of 7 SAN FRANCISCO

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT APPELLANT S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OPENING BRIEF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Petitioner. Respondent. Real Party in Interest.

No [DC# CV MJJ] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. RUSSELL ALLEN NORDYKE; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:00-cv GAF-RC Document 435 Filed 05/14/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1893

Request for Publication

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription:

TO THE HONORABLE TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, CHIEF JUSTICE, AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT: Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules 8.520(a)(5), 8.60, and 8.63, Plaintiffs and Respondents Sheriff Clay Parker, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Able s Sporting, Inc., RTG Sporting Collectibles, LLC, and Steven Stonecipher ( Respondents ), through their attorneys of record, hereby request an extension of time for Respondents to file their responsive brief. This application is based on the declarations of Clinton B. Monfort and Anna M. Barvir attached hereto. Respondents Brief is presently scheduled to be filed on or before June 5, 2014. For good cause, and not for reason of delay, Respondents request an additional 60 days to file their brief. Monfort Decl. 7; Barvir Decl. 7-8. Appellants have indicated that they do not oppose this application. Monfort Decl. 6. And respondents respectively request this Court grant an order to that effect. If approved by the Court, Respondents Brief shall be due on or before August 4, 2014. This Court previously granted Appellants unopposed application for 31-day extension of time to file its opening brief, Appellants unopposed application for an additional 15-day extension of time to file their opening brief. Respondents have not made, and this Court has not yet granted, any previous request for an extension of time to file Respondents Brief. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.63(b), good cause for this request for an extension exists for the reasons summarized below. Due to a sudden family medical emergency, Appellants lead counsel, Clinton B. Monfort, began an indefinite leave of absence from employment on March 17, 2014. Monfort 2

Deci. 2; Barvir Dccl. 2. His emergency was unforeseeable and unavoidable. Monfort Dccl. 2; Barvir Deci. 2. Although Mr. Monfort tentatively returned to work on March 31, 2014, he is regularly out of the office to assist with the continued care of an immediate family member. Monfort Deci. 2; Barvir Dee!. 2. As a result, Ms. Anna M. Barvir is now the attorney primarily responsible for preparing Respondents Brief. Barvir Dccl. 2. For the same reason, she is the attorney primarily responsible for two complex, federal appeals, Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, Ninth Cir. No. 14-15408, and Jackson v. City and County ofsan Francisco, Ninth Cir. No. 12-17803. Barvir Decl. 3. Unfortunately, on April 9, 2014, Ms. Barvir learned that she would be undergoing a necessary operation on April 25, 2014. Barvir Dccl. 4. Ms. Barvir has been out of the office since April 17 and remains at home on bed rest, largely unable to work, until May 19, 2014. Barvir Decl. 4. She thus will only have 18 days to work on Respondents Brief after she returns to work compared to the 76 days Appellants had to draft their opening brief. Barvir Deci. 4. The scheduling of this procedure during the time in which Ms. Barvir must prepare Respondents Brief to meet the current June 5 deadline was unexpected and unavoidable. Barvir Dccl. 4. Since the filing of Appellants Petition, but before Ms. Barvir went on medical leave, she was working full-time on researching and drafting documents with set deadlines for filing in federal appeals involving complex constitutional challenges. Barvir Decl.J 3. Specifically, she was working on researching, drafting and filing an opening brief due on or before May 16, 2014, in Fyock, and a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc due on or before June 23, 2014, in Jackson. Barvir Decl. 3. Ms. Barvir will also be preparing a reply brief in Fyock, due on or before June 30, 2014. Barvir Dccl. 3. 3

In addition, Respondents counsel are both involved in legislative matters. Monfort Decl. 4; Barvir Deci. 5. Mr. Monfort has been, in his multiple roles as litigator and state legislative and policy analyst, heavily involved in state legislative matters with pending deadlines. Monfort Decl. 4. Similarly, Ms. Barvir, in her multiple roles as litigator and local legislative and policy analyst, has also been heavily involved in local legislative matters. Barvir Decl. 5. Deadlines in both state and local legislative matters regularly arise with just a moment s notice, and Respondents counsel anticipates that they both will have to devote many hours to such matters in the coming weeks. Monfort Decl. 4; Barvir Decl. 5. The above reasons preclude Respondents counsel from filing Respondents Brief by the current expected deadline of June 5, 2014, without significantly impairing its quality. Monfort Decl. 5; Barvir Deci. 6. An extension of time will serve the policy favoring adequate time to prepare briefs that fully advance the parties interests, and are accurate, clear, concise, and complete submissions that assist the courts. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.63(a)(2). Dated: May, 9 2014 MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Anna M. Barvir Counsel for Plaintiffs/Respondents 4

DECLARATION OF CLINTON B. MONFORT I, Clinton B. Monfort, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before the courts of the State of California. I am an associate attorney of the law firm Michel & Associates, P.C., counsel for Respondents Sheriff Clay Parker, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Able s Sporting, Inc., RTG Sporting Collectibles, LLC, and Steven Stonecipher, in this action. I have personal knowledge of each fact stated in this declaration and if called as a witness I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. Due to an unexpected family medical emergency, I began an indefinite leave of absence from my employment on March 17, 2014. The emergency was unforeseeable and unavoidable. Although I tentatively returned to work on March 31, 2014, I am regularly out of the office to assist with the continued care of an immediate family member. 3. I am also currently responsible for assisting in the drafting of a number of litigation filings in cases of first impression, including but not limited to, appellants opening brief in Fyock v. City ofsunnyvale, Appeal No. 14-15408, due on or before May 16, 2014, a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc in Jackson v. City and County ofsan Francisco, Appeal No. 12-17803, due on or before June 23, 2014, and appellants reply brief in Fyock, due on or before June 30, 2014. 4. In addition to my role as a litigator, I am responsible for state legislative and policy analysis and regularly must weigh in on laws pending before the California legislature. Deadlines in these matters regularly arise with just a moment s notice, and I anticipate that I will have to 5

devote many hours to such matters in the coming weeks. 5. All of the above reasons have greatly limited and will continue to so limit my ability to review and analyze Appellants opening brief and research and prepare Respondents Brief by the current deadline without impairing its quality. 6. On or about May 2, 2014, I sent Mr. Ross Moody, Appellants counsel of record, an e-mail asking whether Appellants opposed Respondents application for a 60-day extension to file Respondents Brief. On the same day, I received an e-mail from Mr. Ross Moody indicating that Appellants do not object to Respondents request. 7. Respondents application for an extension is made in good faith for the reasons of actual need set forth herein and not merely for the purpose of delay. To my knowledge, the requested extension will not prejudice any party. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.63(b)(1).). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. This declaration was executed on May 7, 2014, in Long Beach, California. Clinton B. M(nf rt Declarant 6

DECLARATION OF ANNA M. BARVIR I, Anna M. Barvir, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before the courts of the State of California. I am an associate attorney of the law firm Michel & Associates, P.C., counsel for counsel for Respondents Sheriff Clay Parker, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Able s Sporting, Inc., RTG Sporting Collectibles, LLC, and Steven Stonecipher, in this action. I have personal knowledge of each fact stated in this declaration and if called as a witness I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. Due to an unexpected family medical emergency, Appellants lead counsel, Clinton B. Monfort, began an indefinite leave of absence from employment on March 17, 2014. His abrupt absence was unforeseeable and unavoidable. Through Mr. Monfort has returned to work, his return is tentative and, as he continues to care for an immediate family member, he is frequently out of the office. As a result, I became the attorney primarily responsible for preparing Respondents Brief. 3. For the same reason, I am also now the attorney primarily responsible for drafting the opening brief in Fyock v. City ofsunnyvale, Appeal No. 14-15408, due on or before May 16, 2014, and a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc in Jackson v. City and County ofsan Francisco, Appeal No. 12-17803, due on or before June 23, 2014. Because of the proximity of the deadlines, I have been preparing, researching, and drafting these documents simultaneously. I am also primarily responsible for preparing a reply brief in Fyock, due on or before June 30, 2014. 4. I learned on April 9, 2014, that I would be undergoing a necessary surgical 7

procedure on April 25, 2014. After the surgery, I was ordered to stay at home on bed rest, largely unable to work, until May 19, 2014. After I return to work, I will only have 18 days to prepare on Respondents Brief, in contrast to the 76 days Appellants had to draft and file their opening brief. The scheduling of this procedure during the time in which I must prepare Respondents Brief was unexpected and unavoidable. 5. In addition to my role as a litigator, I am responsible for local legislative and policy analysis. Deadlines in these matters regularly arise with just a moment s notice, and I anticipate that I will have to devote many hours to such matters in the coming months. 6. All of the above reasons have greatly limited and will continue to so limit my ability to review and analyze the Appellants Opening Brief and research and prepare Respondents Brief by the current deadline without impairing its quality. 7. I recognize the Court s current schedule and the necessity of handling cases in a timely manner. But in light of the circumstances, Respondents request a 60-day extension of time to file their Brief so that it will be due on or before August 4, 2014. 8. Respondents application for an extension is made in good faith for the reasons of actual need set forth herein and not merely for the purpose of delay. To my knowledge, the requested extension will not prejudice any party. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.63(b)(1).). I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. This declaration was executed on May 9, 2014, in Long Beach, California. Anna M. Barvir Declarant 8

PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I, Christina Sanchez, am employed in the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age eighteen (18) years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200 Long Beach, CA 90802. On May 9, 2014, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: RESPONDENTS UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONDENTS BRIEF; DECLARATION OF CLINTON B. MONFORT; DECLARATION OF ANNA M. BARVIR on the interested parties in this action by placing [ I the original [X] a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST..X (BY MAIL) As follows: I am readily familiar with the firm s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Long Beach, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing an affidavit. Executed on May 9, 2014, at Long Beach, California. (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 9, 2014, at Long Beach, California. 9

SERVICE LIST SHERIFF CLAYFARKER ETAL. V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ETAL. CASE NO. S215265 Kamala D. Harris Attorney General of California Peter A. Krause, Deputy Attorney General Ross Moody, Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94 102-7004 California Court of Appeal Fifth District Court of Appeal 2424 Ventura Street Fresno, CA 93721 County of Fresno B.F. Sisk Courthouse Superior Court of California 11300 Street Fresno, CA 93721-2220 Attorney for Defendants/Appellants California Court of Appeal Superior Court of California 10