Bretches v. Kirkland

Filing 85

Report of Pro Se Prisoner Early Settlement Proceeding; case did not settle. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 1/20/10. (glm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DALE BRETCHES, Plaintiff, v RICHARD KIRKLAND, Defendants. Case No C 06-5277 JSW REPORT OF PRO SE PRISONER EARLY SETTLEMENT PROCEEDING A settlement conference in this matter was held on December 15, 2009. The results of that proceeding are indicated below: (1) The following individuals, parties, and/or representatives participated in the proceeding, each possessing the requisite settlement authority: : Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel Herman Franck 9 Warden or warden's representative : Office of the California Attorney General, Emily Brinkman : Other: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Kaye Bassett 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (2) (3) The following individuals, parties, and/or representatives did not appear: The outcome of the proceeding was: 9 The case has been completely settled. 9 The case has been partially resolved and, on or before _______________________, counsel for defendants shall file a joint stipulation specifying those claims which have been resolved and those that remain to be resolved by the Court. 9 The parties agree to an additional follow up settlement on ______________________________________________________________________. : The parties are unable to reach an agreement at this time. _______________________________ Nandor J Vadas United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California Date: 1/20/10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?