Carter v. County of Fresno
Filing
38
STIPULATION and ORDER Continuing Hearing on Motion to Determine the Preclusive Effect of Judge Wanger's Memorandum Decision re: Motions for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing (Doc. 34) is continued from 4/10/2015 to May 1, 2015 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/6/2015. (Herman, H)
1 Gary M. Messing, Bar No. 075363
James W. Henderson, Jr., Bar No. 071170
2 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP
Attorneys at Law
3 980 9th Street, Suite 380
Sacramento, California 95814
4 Telephone:
916.446.5297
Facsimile:
916.448.5047
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff OSCAR CARTER II
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION
10
11 OSCAR CARTER II,
12
13
Case No. 1:13-CV-00774-BAM and the
following action numbers:
Plaintiff,
v.
14 COUNTY OF FRESNO,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1:13-CV-00775-BAM
1:13-CV-00778-BAM
1:13-CV-00783-BAM
1:13-CV-00784-BAM
1:13-CV-00790-BAM
1:13-CV-00795-BAM
1:13-CV-00797-BAM
1:13-CV-00829-BAM
1:13-CV-00902-BAM
1:13-CV-00972-BAM
1:13-CV-00973-BAM
1:13-CV-00989-BAM
1:13-CV-01001-BAM
1:13-CV-01003-BAM
1:13-CV-01004-BAM
1:13-CV-01006-BAM
1:13-CV-01007-BAM
1:13-CV-01009-BAM
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING
HEARING ON MOTION TO DETERMINE THE
PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF JUDGE WANGER’S
MEMORANDUM DECISION RE: MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
23
24
Judge:
Date:
Time:
Crtrm.:
25
26
Hon. Barbara A. McAuliffe
April 10, 2015
9:00 a.m.
8
27
28
CARROLL, BURDICK &
MCDONOUGH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SACRAMENTO
CBM-SAC\SA204023-1
Case No. 1:13-CV-00774-BAM
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DETERMINE
1
THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
2
1.
That the attorneys at Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP who have been handling
3 the matters listed on the caption are leaving that firm effective April 5, 2015 to join the new firm
4 Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP, who will be substituting in as counsel of record for the Plaintiffs
5 in the 18 actions listed in the caption;
6
2.
That obtaining and filing the substitutions of counsel will not be accomplished by
7 April 10, 2015, the date for the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motions to Determine the Preclusive Effect
8 of Judge Wanger’s Memorandum Decision Re: Motions for Summary Judgment; and
9
THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE that the hearing on these Motions
10 be continued from April 10, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. to May 1, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 8 before
11 Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe.
12
13 DATED: April 3, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
14
CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP
Attorneys at Law
15
16
By:
17
/s/ James W. Henderson, Jr.
James W. Henderson, Jr.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18
19
20
DATED: April 3, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
21
22
23
By:
/s/ Michael G. Woods
Michael G. Woods
Attorneys for Defendant
24
25
26
27
28
CARROLL, BURDICK &
MCDONOUGH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SACRAMENTO
CBM-SAC\SA204023-1
Case No. 1:13-CV-00774-BAM
-2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DETERMINE
1
ORDER
2
Based on the Stipulation of the parties hereto and good cause appearing therefore,
3
IT IS SO ORDERED that the hearing on the Motions to Determine the Preclusive Effect of
4 Judge Wanger’s Memorandum Decision Re: Motions for Summary Judgement for the cases
5 identified in the caption above are hereby ordered continued from April 10, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. to
6 May 1, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 8 before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe.
7
Dated:
April 6, 2015
8
/s/ Barbara
A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CARROLL, BURDICK &
MCDONOUGH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SACRAMENTO
CBM-SAC\SA204023-1
Case No. 1:13-CV-00774-BAM
-3STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DETERMINE
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?