Doherty v. City of Alameda et al

Filing 94

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S LIEN. It is hereby Ordered that Plaintiff, Defendants, and Mr. Grant are each permitted, but not required, to file one brief of no more than four pages each setting forth their cur rent position regarding Mr. Grants attorneys lien motion. Such briefs shall be filed within ten days of the date of this Order. A hearing on the motion shall be held on May 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM. If the Court determines that no hearing is required, it will so notify the parties and Mr. Grant. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 5/4/2011. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2011)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
JOHN DOHERTY,
7
Plaintiff,

No. 09-4961-EDL

8
v.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

CITY OF ALAMEDA and CITY OF
ALAMEDA HOUSING AND BUILDING
CODE HEARING AND APPEALS BOARD,

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND SETTING
HEARING ON MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S LIEN

11
Defendants.
12
13

/
The Court previously stayed consideration of Plaintiff’s former attorney, Lee Grant’s, Motion

14

for an Attorney’s Lien (Dkt. No. 47) and related motion to seal (Dkt. No. 70) in light of Plaintiff’s

15

Notice of Voluntary Bankruptcy Petition (Dkt. No. 68). Mr. Grant recently informed the Court

16

that Plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition was dismissed on October 15, 2010. See Dkt No. 88. Plaintiff

17

now admits that there is no reason for the stay. Dkt. No. 93. The Court hereby LIFTS the stay

18

imposed on this portion of the case and will allow the motion to proceed.

19

However, Plaintiff contends that a hearing on the attorney’s lien motion should be delayed

20

because it is not time-sensitive and no party will be disadvantaged by a delay, and the hearing should

21

take place after mediation between the parties to this litigation so as not to distract Plaintiff from his

22

focus on mediation. Id. None of these arguments are persuasive. Mr. Grant’s motion was filed on

23

May 2, 2010, approximately one year ago, and the motion has been fully briefed since June 25,

24

2010. Mr. Grant is entitled to a prompt resolution of his request for an attorney’s lien, and because

25

the motion is fully briefed the Court does not foresee Plaintiff needing to expend any significant

26

effort beyond attending the motion hearing, if one is held, and arguing his position.

27
28

It is hereby Ordered that Plaintiff, Defendants, and Mr. Grant are each permitted, but not
required, to file one brief of no more than four pages each setting forth their current position
regarding Mr. Grant’s attorney’s lien motion. Such briefs shall be filed within ten days of the date

1

of this Order. A hearing on the motion shall be held on May 31, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. If the Court

2

determines that no hearing is required, it will so notify the parties and Mr. Grant.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: May _4_, 2011

5
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2