Halsey v. JP Morgan Chase et al

Filing 50

ORDER GRANTING 49 Stipulation TO CONTINUE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, PRETRIAL FILING DEADLINES, AND TRIAL DATE TO ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S JURY SERVICE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 11/30/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2009)

Download PDF
Case3:08-cv-01335-JSW Document49 Filed11/24/09 Page1 of 4 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 CHRISTOPHER B. DOLAN (SBN 165358) SHAWN R. MILLER (SBN 238447) THE DOLAN LAW FIRM 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 421-2800 Facsimile: (415) 421-2830 SCOTT BONAGOFSKY (SBN 190255) 1 Market Street Steuart Tower, Suite 1600 San Francisco CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 882-1555 Facsimile: (415) 882-1551 Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES HALSEY ROBERT E. BELSHAW, ESQ. (SBN 142028) Of Counsel GUTIERREZ & ASSOCIATES 244 California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-2385 Facsimile: (415) 398-5800 Attorneys for Defendant JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES HALSEY Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A., AND DOES ONE THROUGH FIFTY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 08-CV-01335 JSW JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PRETRIAL FILING DEADLINES AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, AND TRIAL DATE Final Pretrial Conf. Date: December 7, 2009 Time: 2:00 p.m. -1JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE CASE NO. CV 08 01335 JSW Case3:08-cv-01335-JSW Document49 Filed11/24/09 Page2 of 4 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 1. Plaintiff's lead trial counsel, Scott Bonagofsky, has been sworn onto a civil jury for an asbestos trial in San Francisco Superior Court, Department 606, the Honorable Tomar Mason presiding, beginning on November 23, 2009, at 1:30 p.m.; 2. The asbestos trial is estimated to last until December 18, 2009, and possibly until December 21, 2009. The courtroom is dark on December 10 and 11, 2009, and in the afternoon of December 14, 2009. 3. Plaintiff's counsel's jury service, the jury selection process of which began on Monday, November 16, 2009, has interfered with the parties' ability to complete all of the pretrial filings that were due on November 23, 2009. Plaintiff's counsel's jury service will also make it impossible for him to attend the Final Pretrial Conference, which is currently scheduled for December 7, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. in this Court. 4. The parties jointly request a continuance of the Final Pretrial Conference and associated filing deadlines until any available, suitable date and time after December 21, 2009, when the asbestos trial is scheduled to end. 5. The parties also request a brief continuance of the January 11, 2010 trial date to facilitate the scheduling of the pretrial filings and Final Pretrial Conference, and to allow the parties to participate in a follow-up mediation session in early January 2010. The parties believe that the likelihood of settlement is greater now that the parties have obtained this Court's rulings on the parties' motions for summary judgment and partial summary judgment. 6. The parties had scheduled a follow-up mediation session for December 2, 2009, with mediator Eileen Barker, but had to cancel that date due to Plaintiff's lead trial counsel's jury service. Ms. Barker is unavailable until after December 21, 2009, and has limited availability in December 2009 after that date. The parties jointly request that the Court continue the January 11, 2010 trial date to early -2- JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE CASE NO. CV 08 01335 JSW Case3:08-cv-01335-JSW Document49 Filed11/24/09 Page3 of 4 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 8. 7. February 2010 to allow them to conduct the follow-up mediation session in early January 2010. Plaintiff's lead trial counsel has an eight-day JAMS arbitration scheduled for March 1, 2010, and that case is not expected to settle prior to the arbitration. There is a chance that the March 1, 2010 arbitration date will be continued for a brief period of a few weeks to accommodate Plaintiff's lead trial counsel's schedule, but that will not be known until at least December 3, 2009, when the arbitrator, Hon. Nat Agliano, is scheduled to hear a conference call regarding the request for a continuance of the arbitration date. Plaintiff's counsel respectfully requests that the trial in this case not be scheduled later than February 8, 2010. It is so stipulated and agreed by the parties. Dated: November 23, 2009 GUTIERREZ & ASSOCIATES /s/Robert Belshaw Robert Belshaw Attorneys for Defendant THE DOLAN LAW FIRM Dated: November 23, 2009 /s/ Shawn R. Miller_______ Shawn R. Miller Attorneys for Plaintiff SCOTT BONAGOFSKY, ATTORNEY AT LAW Dated: November 23, 2009 /s/ Scott Bonagofsky_______ Scott Bonagofsky Attorneys for Plaintiff -3JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE CASE NO. CV 08 01335 JSW Case3:08-cv-01335-JSW Document49 Filed11/24/09 Page4 of 4 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 p.m.; 2. PROPOSED ORDER Pursuant to the parties' Stipulation, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. 10 The Final Pretrial Conference is continued to _F_bruar_______ __, 20__, at 2:00 _e ____ y 1 The parties' pretrial filings shall be due in accordance with the Court's Standing Orders, based on the above Final Pretrial Conference date. 3. Febr __ y __ 8 __ _ [The trial date in this matter is continued to ______uar__22 __, 20__, at __:00 a .m.] 10 DATED:_N_____ber_30,_2009 _ ovem __ __ ___ _________________________________________ JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -4JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATE CASE NO. CV 08 01335 JSW

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?