Reyes et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 65

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: COURT-ORDERED MEDIATION. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 3/1/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 MICHAEL J. STEINER (State Bar No. 112079) mjs@severson.com ALEX C. SEARS (State Bar No.232491) acs@severson.com SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-3344 Facsimile: (415) 956-0439 6 7 Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 GUSTAVO REYES and MARIA TERESA GUERRERO, husband and wife, individually 13 and on behalf of others similarly situated, 14 Case No.: 3:10-cv-01667-JCS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: COURT-ORDERED MEDIATION Plaintiffs, 15 vs. 16 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a national bank; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Judge: The Hon. Joseph C. Spero Complaint Filed: Mar. 11, 2010 Trial Date: (not yet set) WHEREAS, on August 29, 2010, this Court ordered plaintiffs Gustavo Reyes and Maria 20 Teresa Guerrero and defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to mediate this case pursuant to Local 21 Rule 6; and 22 23 WHEREAS, the parties agreed to schedule the mediation before the court-appointed mediator; and 24 WHEREAS, the parties subsequently agreed to conduct a mediation before a private 25 mediator, namely, Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.) of JAMS, in lieu of the court-appointed 26 mediation procedure; and 27 /// 28 /// 07725/0128/2143071.1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MEDIATION 1 WHEREAS, the parties previously submitted a stipulation and proposed order to the Court 2 informing the Court of their decision to mediate before Retired Judge Sabraw and requesting a 3 continuance of the schedule for class certification; and 4 5 WHEREAS, the Court entered the proposed order on December 21, 2011 directing the parties to mediate as they had agreed; and 6 7 WHEREAS, the parties held the agreed-upon mediation before Retired Judge Sabraw on February 16, 2012; and 8 9 10 WHEREAS, the parties believe that the mediation before Retired Judge Sabraw was productive and resulted in progress toward settlement, though they have not yet reached a final resolution; and 11 WHEREAS, the parties believe that their mediation before Retired Judge Sabraw 12 constituted satisfaction of their agreement to mediate this matter, and that court-appointed 13 mediation is unnecessary; 14 WHEREFORE, the parties agree and hereby stipulate as follows: 15 1. 16 That the February 16, 2012 mediation session satisfied their obligation to mediate this case pursuant to the Court’s August 29, 2010 order; and 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 07725/0128/2143071.1 -2– STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MEDIATION 1 2. 2 That mediation before the court-appointed mediator is unnecessary in light of the parties’ February 16, 2012 mediation. 3 This stipulation is without prejudice to the rights, claims, defenses and arguments of all 4 parties. 5 DATED: February 29, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF PETER B. FREDMAN LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PIVOTRAK 6 7 By: /S/Peter B. Fredman Peter B. Fredman Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 9 10 DATED: February 29, 2012 SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation 11 12 By: /S/ Michael J. Steiner Michael J. Steiner 13 Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. 14 15 16 PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, 17 IT IS ORDERED that the parties have satisfied their obligation to mediate this case pursuant to the Court’s August 29, 2010 order, and that the Court hereby VACATES its 19 previous referral to court-appointed mediation. RT U O March 1, 2012 Date:________________________ 21 S DISTRICT TE C TA UNIT ED NO H ER 25 FO RT 24 Judge LI 23 R NIA ______________________________ Hon. Joseph C. Spero U.S. MAGISTRATEC. Spero JUDGE Joseph 22 A 20 S 18 N F D IS T IC T O R C 26 27 28 07725/0128/2143071.1 -3– STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MEDIATION

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?