Arndt v. City of Arcata et al

Filing 24

ORDER for ADR Process. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 4/29/13. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2013)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASEY ARNDT,

CASE NO. C-13-000372-NJV
Plaintiff(s),

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

v.
CITY OF ARCATA, et al.,
Defendant(s).
________________________________/
Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the
following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5:
The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process:
Court Processes:
9
Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4)
9
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
:
Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
(Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is
appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR must participate in an
ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for
ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5)
Private Process:
:
Private ADR (please identify process and provider). Depending upon results of
the court appointed mediator, parties may choose private mediation.
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
:
the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order
referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered. )
9
other requested deadline _____________________________________________
Dated: April 9, 2013

/s/ Patrik Griego
Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: April 9, 2013

/s/ David W. Hamilton
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants CSU
and Officer Delmar Tompkins

Dated: April 9, 2013

/s/ Nancy K. Delaney
Attorneys for Defendant
City of Arcata

[PROPOSED] ORDER
9
9

The parties’ stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties’ stipulation is modified as follows, and IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/29/13

_______________________________________
Judge Nandor J. Vadas
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE