Doherty v. City of Alameda et al

Filing 97

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS LIEN AND ALLOWING MR. GRANT UNTIL MAY 31, 2011 TO FILE. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 5/19/2011. ( Attachments: # 1 proof of service as to Grant)(cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2011)

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 CONTINUING HEARING ON
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S LIEN AND
ALLOWING MR. GRANT UNTIL MAY 31,
2011 TO FILE

11
Defendants.
12

/

13

On May 4, 2011, this Court issued an Order lifting the stay imposed on the portion of the case

14

relating to Plaintiff’s former attorney Lee Grant’s motion for an attorney’s lien, allowing the parties

15

and Mr. Grant until May 14 to brief of no more than four pages setting forth their current position

16

regarding Mr. Grant’s attorney’s lien motion, and setting a hearing for May 31, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.

17

The Court has recently discovered that Mr. Grant was not timely served with the May 4, 2011

18

Order and may not have received notice of his right to file a brief or the upcoming hearing date.

19

Therefore, the Court will allow Mr. Grant until May 31, 2011 to file a brief of no more than four

20

pages setting forth his current position regarding his attorney’s lien motion, though he need not file

21

anything. A hearing on the motion will be held on June 9, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.

22

Defendants may, but need not, attend the hearing. Given his location in Southern California,

23

Mr. Grant may appear telephonically at the hearing. If he choses to appear by telephone, no later

24

than two Court days prior, Mr. Grant shall call the Court's courtroom deputy at 415-522-3694 to

25

provide the Court with a direct dial number to call on for his appearance. Counsel shall stand by

26

beginning at the date and time above until called by the Court. If the Court concludes that the

27

absence of any party or Mr. Grant is interfering with the conference, the Court may continue the

28

conference and order personal attendance by each party and/or Mr. Grant. If the Court determines

1

that no hearing is required for it to decide the motion, it will so notify the parties and Mr. Grant.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: May _19_, 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