Landry v. Berry et al
Filing
45
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Motion Hearing set for 9/15/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/1/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2011)
*E-Filed 7/1/11*
1
7
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
TYLER B. PON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
DAVID W. HAMILTON
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 88587
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
P.O. Box 70550
Oakland, CA 94612-0550
Telephone: (510) 622-2193
Facsimile: (510) 622-2121
E-mail:
David.Hamilton@doj.ca.gov
8
Attorneys for Defendant Mike Berry
9
TERRI KEYSER-COOPER
Law Office of Terri Keyser-Cooper
State Bar No. 122355
3300 Skyline Blvd., No. 274
Reno, NV 89509
Telephone: (775) 337-0323
E-mail:
keysercooper@yahoo.com
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
16
DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT
Law Office of Diane K. Vaillancourt
State Bar No. 181348
849 Almar Avenue, Suite C403
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Telephone: (831) 458-3340
E-mail:
vaillancourt@cruzio.com
17
Attorneys for Plaintiff Malcolm L Landry
14
15
18
19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21
22
MALCOLM L. LANDRY,
23
24
25
26
27
v.
Case No. CV10-04707 RS
Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER
RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
MIKE BERRY and BRENT JENKINS,
Courtroom:
3, 17th Floor
Judge:
Hon. Richard Seeborg
Defendants. Trial Date:
July 23, 2012
Action Filed: October 19, 2010
28
Stip. & [Proposed] Order re Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (CV10-04707 RS)
1
The Court on June 16, 2011 entered its Stipulation and Order re Trial and Litigation Dates,
2
designating October 27, 2011 as the last date for dispositive motions to be heard. Thereafter,
3
plaintiff filed his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability with a noticed hearing
4
date of August 4, 2011. Defendant has indicated to the Court and plaintiff’s counsel his intention
5
to file his own summary judgment motion. The parties have now met and conferred regarding
6
a briefing schedule and hearing date for their respective motions (plaintiff’s motion for partial
7
summary judgment and defendant’s motion for summary judgment), and they have stipulated to
8
the following briefing and hearing schedule which they propose for the Court’s approval:
9
10
Plaintiff filed motion for partial summary judgment:
June 27, 2011
11
Defendant files motion for summary judgment:
July 29, 2011
12
Both parties file their respective opposition papers:
August 15, 2011
13
Both parties file reply briefs:
September 2, 2011
14
Hearing on cross-motions of the parties:
September 15, 2011, 1:30 p.m.
15
16
The parties further stipulate to vacate the current hearing date of August 4, 2011
17
on plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, and the dispositive motion hearing date
18
of October 27, 2011.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Stip. & [Proposed] Order re Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (CV10-04707 RS)
1
Dated: July 1, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
2
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
TYLER B. PON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3
4
6
/s/ David W. Hamilton
DAVID W. HAMILTON
Deputy Attorney General
7
Attorneys for Defendant Mike Berry
5
8
11
/s/ Diane K. Vaillancourt
DIANE K. VAILLANCOURT
Law Office of Diane K. Vaillancourt
TERRI KEYSER-COOPER
Law Office of Terri Keyser-Cooper
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff Malcolm L Landry
9
Dated: July 1, 2011
10
13
ORDER
14
15
The Court hereby approves and orders the above briefing schedule and hearing date
16
for the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and vacates the hearing dates of
17
August 4 and October 27, 2011.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated:
21
22
23
7/1/11
HON. RICHARD SEEBORG
Judge of the United States District Court
OK2010900635
90197998.doc
24
25
26
27
28
2
Stip. & [Proposed] Order re Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (CV10-04707 RS)
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?