Hajro v. Barrett et al

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 50 Motion for Leave to File; denying 51 Motion for Leave to File. Granting Plaintiff leave to file revised findings of fact and conclusions of law. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

MELINDA HAAG, CSBN 132612
United States Attorney
JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
ILA C. DEISS, NY SBN 3052909
MELANIE L. PROCTOR, CSBN 228971
Assistant United States Attorneys
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: [phone] (Deiss)
Telephone: [phone] (Proctor)
FAX:
[phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]
E-mail:
[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10

Attorneys for Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
MIRSAD HAJRO,
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18

v.
ROBIN BARRETT, San Francisco Field
Office; et al.

19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 10-1772 MEJ
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE
TO FILE OBJECTIONS (Elec. Dkt. Nos.
50 and 51); PROPOSED ORDER

Defendants hereby oppose Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to File Objections to

20

Defendants’ Revised Disputed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Elec. Dkt. Nos. 50 and

21

51. First, Plaintiff’s motions are not in compliance with Civ. L.R. 7-11 because they are not

22

accompanied by a stipulation or a declaration explaining why a stipulation could not be obtained.

23

Civ. L.R. 7-11(a).

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE
No. C 10-1772 MEJ

1

Second, the proper vehicle for filing oppositional findings of fact to Defendants’ findings

2

of fact would have been through filing revised findings of fact, pursuant to the Court’s minute

3

order. Elec. Dkt. No. 45. Although Plaintiff did not file revised findings of fact on

4

November 9, 2011, Defendants have no objection to Plaintiff filing his revised findings of fact

5

and conclusions of law out of time.

6

Date: November 10, 2011

7

MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney

8

/s/
MELANIE L. PROCTOR
ILA C. DEISS
Assistant United States Attorneys
Attorneys for Defendants

9
10
11
12
13

Respectfully submitted,

PROPOSED ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to File Objections (Elec. Dkt. Nos. 50 and 51) are hereby

14

DENIED. Plaintiff shall have until 4:00 p.m. on Monday, November 14, 2011, to file revised

15

findings of fact and conclusions of law. This disposes of Elec. Dkt. Nos. 50 and 51.

R NIA

S

MARIA-ELENA lena James
aria-E JAMES
Judge M
Chief, United States Magistrate Judge
FO

LI

ER

A

H

20

ERED

O ORD

IT IS S

RT

19

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

NO

18

Dated: 11/10/2011

UNIT
ED

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

16

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE
2
No. C 10-1772 MEJ

C