Willis, et al. v. City Of Fresno, et al.
Filing
263
STIPULATION and ORDER Setting All Currently Pending Motions Before the Court to be Heard on March 28, 2014: Based on the Stipulation of the parties (Doc. 262), the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 5 0(b), Defendants' Motion for Relief from the Judgment of this Court pursuant to Rule 66(b), and Plaintiff's Motion for Court Review of Objections to Defendants' Bill of Cost (Docs. 244, 245, 252, 257) are CONTINUED (from 3/14/2014) to March 28, 2014, at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The deadlines for filing oppositiion and reply briefs are due according to the original date of hearing. Local Rule 230. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/27/2014. (Herman, H)
1
James D. Weakley, Esq.
Roy C. Santos, Esq.
Bar No. 082853
Bar No. 259718
2
3
4
Weakley & Arendt, LLP
1630 East Shaw Ave., Suite 176
Fresno, California 93710
Telephone: (559) 221-5256
Facsimile: (559) 221-5262
5
6
Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF FRESNO, OFFICER GREG CATTON
and OFFICER DANIEL ASTACIO
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
CHRIS WILLIS, MARY WILLIS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND SUCCESSORS IN
INTEREST TO STEPHEN WILLIS;
JENNAFER URIBE,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
vs.
16
17
18
CITY OF FRESNO, OFFICER GREG
CATTON, OFFICER DANIEL ASTACIO,
CHIEF JERRY DYER, and DOES 1 through
50 inclusive,
Defendants.
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01766-BAM
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING
ALL CURRENTLY PENDING MOTIONS
BEFORE THE COURT TO BE HEARD ON
MARCH 28, 2014
Judge:
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Barbara A. McAuliffe
20
21
1.
It is hereby stipulated between the parties, through their respective counsel, that
22
the date for Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law to Rule 50(b) and Motion for
23
Relief from the Final Judgment or Orders of the Court, now scheduled for March 14, 2014, be
24
extended two weeks, to March 28, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 8, to accommodate James
25
D. Weakley’s pre-planned CAL-ABOTA Board meeting in San Diego on March 14, 2014.
26
2.
It is also hereby stipulated between the parties, through their respective counsel,
27
that the date for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of and Objections to Defendant Daniel Astacio’s
28
Bill of Costs, set for March 21, 2014, be extended to March 28, 2014, the date of Plaintiffs’
Stipulation and Order Setting All Currently Pending Motions
Before the Court to be Heard on March 28, 2014
1
1
Motion for New Trial. It is further stipulated that this stipulation does not constitute a waiver of
2
Defendants’ objection that the currently scheduled hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Review of
3
and Objections to Defendant Daniel Astacio’s Bill of Costs is premature.
4
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
5
DATED: February 26, 2014
WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP
6
By:
7
8
/s/ James D. Weakley______________
James D. Weakley
Roy C. Santos
Attorneys for Defendants
9
10
DATED: February 26, 2014
WALTER, HAMILTON & KOENIG, LLP
11
By:
12
13
/s/ Peter Koenig___________________
Walter Walker
Peter Koenig
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14
ORDER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Based on the Stipulation of the parties (Doc. 262), the hearings on Defendants’ Motion
for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50(b), Defendants’ Motion for Relief from
the Judgment of this Court pursuant to Rule 60(b), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Review of
Objections to Defendants’ Bill of Costs (Doc. 244, 245, 252, 257) are CONTINUED to March
28, 2014, at 9:00 AM, in Courtroom 8, before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A.
McAuliffe. The deadlines for filing opposition and reply briefs are due according to the
original date of hearing. Local Rule 230.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
February 27, 2014
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
Stipulation and Order Setting All Currently Pending Motions
Before the Court to be Heard on March 28, 2014
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?