Ozburn v. County of Fresno

Filing 39

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. 35) 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)

Download PDF
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?