JEREMY FOGEL, District Judge
For the reasons set forth below, the parties stipulate and request that the Court continue the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment from the original hearing date of March 24, 2006 until May 5, 2006.
1. Plaintiffs are requesting the continuance because their counsel, Kathryn Burkett Dickson and Jeffrey Ross of Dickson — Ross LLP, have been involved in a jury trial in San Mateo County Superior Court continuously since the last week of January, 2006. The trial will not conclude until the week of February 27 — March 3 at the earliest.
2. Plaintiffs received Defendants' motion for summary judgment while in trial in San Mateo County and have been unable to begin preparing the response. Unless there is a continuance of the hearing date on the summary judgment motion in this case, Plaintiffs' counsel will have either no time or virtually no time to prepare Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion, which is currently due on March 3, 2006. Plaintiffs would be prejudiced if their counsel did not have reasonable or adequate time to prepare the opposition papers.
3. Plaintiffs' counsel's firm, Dickson — Ross, has just two lawyers, Ms. Dickson and Mr. Ross, both of whom have been fully engaged in the current jury trial in San Mateo Superior Court.
4. The parties have been informed by Court staff that the next available hearing date on the Court's calendar is May 5, 2006.
5. Based on the above, Defendants' counsel have agreed to continue the hearing on their motion for summary judgment to May 5, 2006.
6. No prior continuances of the hearing date have been requested.
7. Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate to continue the hearing date on Defendants' motion for summary judgment to May 5, 2006.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
The parties have so stipulated, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment, currently scheduled for March 24, 2006, is continued to May 5, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF CONCURRENCE IN ELECTRONIC FILING
In accordance with General Order No. 45, Section X.B., I attest that concurrence in the electronic filing of this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was obtained from Paul M. Lusky.