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)

Download PDF
*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?