Martin v. City of Richmond

Filing 100

ORDER Vacating January 12, 2010 Mandatory Settlement Conference re 99 Stipulation filed by City of Richmond. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 1/04/2010. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP Attorneys at Law

JEFFREY SLOAN (SBN 078179) [e-mail] TIMOTHY G. YEUNG (SBN 186170) [e-mail] STEVE CIKES (SBN 235413) [e-mail] RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104-1304 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF RICHMOND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN MARTIN, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF RICHMOND, Defendant. Case No.: C-06-6146 CRB STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING THE PARTIES' JANUARY 12, 2010 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Complaint Filed: Trial Date: September 29, 2006 Not Set

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff Kevin Martin ("Plaintiff") and Defendant City of Richmond ("City"), through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, on April 21, 2009, the Court issued a Case Management and Settlement Conference Order scheduling deadlines by which the parties must complete discovery, bring dispositive motions, and stipulate to conditional collective action certification. The order also required the parties to appear for a mandatory settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Spero on October 26, 2009. WHEREAS, on two separate occasions, the parties have continued, with court approval, the dates set forth in the April 21, 2009 Case Management and Settlement Conference Order. The continuances were based, in part, on the ground that the parties were actively participating in informal settlement discussions in an effort to resolve this matter in its entirety, without the need 1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING THE PARTIES' JANUARY 12, 2010 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; CASE NO. C-06-6146 CRB

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP Attorneys at Law

for Court involvement. WHEREAS, on July 31, 2009, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice rescheduling the parties' October 26, 2009 mandatory settlement conference with Judge Spero to January 12, 2010. WHEREAS, on October 21, 2009, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order requesting that the deadlines scheduled in this matter for completing discovery and bringing dispositive motions be vacated in light of the progress being made by the parties in their informal settlement discussions. The Court approved the stipulation and proposed order on October 22, 2009. The order requires the parties to appear for a case management conference on January 8, 2010 and provides that if the parties are unable to reach agreement on the terms of a settlement by that time, that the Court then order them to participate in a subsequent settlement conference with Judge Spero in order to mediate any outstanding matters preventing settlement. WHEREAS, since receiving the Court's October 22, 2009 order, the parties have made significant progress in their informal settlement discussions. Counsel for the parties believe they are extraordinarily close to reaching an agreement in principal on an overall settlement, but are still negotiating specific terms. Moreover, once this process is completed, they will require additional time in order to present the settlement to their respective clients for final approval. WHEREAS, counsel for the parties are confident that they can reach a tentative agreement on all settlement terms prior to the January 8, 2010 case management conference. Counsel for the parties will then recommend to their respective clients that they formally agree to the terms of the tentative settlement agreement. Accordingly, counsel for the parties do not believe a January 12, 2010 settlement conference would be either necessary or helpful at this juncture. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the January 12, 2009 mandatory settlement conference be vacated from the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Court's calendar. 2. That the Court evaluate the need for a mandatory settlement conference when the

parties appear at the January 8, 2010 case management conference. 2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING THE PARTIES' JANUARY 12, 2010 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; CASE NO. C-06-6146 CRB

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP Attorneys at Law

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: December 29, 2009

RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

By:

/s/ Steve Cikes ____________ Steve Cikes Attorney for Defendant City of Richmond

Dated: December 29, 2009

RAINS LUCIA STERN, PC

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED.

By:__ /s/ Peter Hoffmann__ Peter Hoffmann Attorney for Plaintiff Kevin Martin

UNIT ED

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ED

S

Dated: Jan. 4, 2010

, 2009

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING THE PARTIES' JANUARY 12, 2010 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; CASE NO. C-06-6146 CRB

A

C

LI

FO

harle Judge C

s R. Bre

yer

R NIA

OO IT IS S

RDER

NO

RT

H