Lee v. Port of Oakland
Filing
42
ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE re 41 Stipulation filed by City Of Oakland, Peter C. Lee. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 3, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2011)
Lee v. Port of Oakland et al
Doc. 42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 PETER C. LEE, Plaintiff, v. PORT OF OAKLAND and CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant. / A jury trial is set to begin on March 28. On February 14, the parties requested a continuance of the trial and pretrial conference dates on the grounds that "[t]he case has been settled." Because no evidence of settlement was provided, the request was denied without prejudice to renewal "after the parties attempt to make a more convincing showing that such a continuance is warranted." (Dkt. No. 38). On February 16, plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal as to defendant Port of Oakland, leaving City of Oakland as the only remaining defendant. On March 2, the parties renewed their request for a continuance (Dkt. No. 41). The parties concurrently filed a copy of a settlement agreement between plaintiff and defendant City of Oakland that was executed by plaintiff on February 27 and is contingent on approval by the Oakland City Counsel. The parties represent that this agreement will be reviewed by the Oakland City Counsel on March 15. ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE No. C 09-06033 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Dockets.Justia.com
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pre-trial filings currently are due on March 14. The final pre-trial conference is set for March 21, and a jury trial is set to begin on March 28. Good cause appearing, each of these dates us CONTINUED by two weeks.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2011.
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
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?