Johnson v. Chevron Corporation et al
Filing
334
CORRECTED ORDER (BRIEF NOT TO EXCEED 20 PAGES) (ts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2009)
Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI
Document 332
Filed 04/02/2009
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
SAMUEL BERNARD JOHNSON III 4420 Abruzzi Circle Stockton, California 95206 Telephone: (209) 982-5861 Email: blakviii@aol.com - Email Plaintiff - In Pro Se
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
SAMUEL BERNARD JOHNSON III,
13
Case No.: C 07-05756 SI (JCS) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PAGE LIMITATON TO FILE A REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION, [COURT DOCKET NOS. 329330]
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
CHEVRON CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, CHEVRON CORPORATION LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN ORGANIZATION, a Delaware corporation, CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a California corporation, CATHERINE DREW, KATHRYN M. GALLACHER, ROBERT SCHMITT, HARALD SMEDAL, SUSAN J. SOLGER, SELLERS STOUGH, KRYSTAL TRAN, DEBBIE WONG, GARY A. YAMASHITA, and DOES 1-5, Defendants
24 25 26 27 28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PAGE LIMITATION TO FILE A REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION, COURT DOCKET NOS. 329-330, CASE NO. C 07-05756 SI (JCS)
Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI
Document 332
Filed 04/02/2009
Page 2 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The Court having read and considered Plaintiff Johnson's motion to exceed the fifteen page limitation to file a reply to defendants opposition and as good cause does appear, the motion is hereby GRANTED. BRIEF MAY NOT EXCEED 20 PAGES. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this ______day of April 2009
HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED FIFTEEN PAGE LIMITATION TO FILE A REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION, COURT DOCKET NOS. 329-330, CASE NO. C 07-05756 SI (JCS)
1
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?