Wasserman v. United States
Filing
12
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 11 Proposed Order to continue the CMC, filed by United States. Case Management Statement due by 1/31/2012. Case Management Conference set for 2/7/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 11/23/2011. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011)
1
6
MELINDA HAAG (CSBN 132612)
United States Attorney
JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)
Chief, Civil Division
MICHAEL T. PYLE (CSBN 172954)
Assistant United States Attorney
150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: (408) 535-5087
FAX: (408) 535-5081
michael.t.pyle@usdoj.gov
7
Attorneys for Defendant United States of America
8
11
Michael Cohen (CSBN 98066)
Attorney at Law
Grove Law Building
345 Grove Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415/861-4414
Fax: 415/431-4526
12
Attorney for Plaintiff David Wasserman
2
3
4
5
9
10
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
DAVID WASSERMAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)
Case No. C 11-2772 EDL
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND
CONTINUING INITIAL CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
AS MODIFIED
The parties, having both previously consented to allow the Court to conduct all further proceedings
in this matter, have reached the following stipulation, all of which is subject to the Court’s approval.
24
Counsel for defendant has advised counsel for planitiff of defendant’s intention to file a motion to
25
dismiss the complaint. This motion will be filed on or before November 30, 2011, a few days prior to
26
the deadline to respond to the complaint because of leave long scheduled for defendant’s counsel. The
27
parties have discussed a briefing schedule to accomodate their respective schedules and which they
28
believe is most efficient for their respective clients.
No. C 11-2772 EDL STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND CONTINUING CMC
1
1
Defendant will notice his motion for hearing on February 7, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. The parties have
2
agreed that Plaintiff will have until January 6, 2012 to file any opposition papers and Defendant will
3
have until January 20, 2012 to file any reply papers. The parties have further stipulated to request that
4
the Court continue the Initial Case Management Conference from December 20, 2011 to February 7,
5
2012 at 10:00 a.m., the same day as the motion hearing date.
6
DATED: November 16, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
7
8
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
9
/s/ Michael T. Pyle
________________________________
MICHAEL T. PYLE
Assistant United States Attorney
Counsel for Defendant United States of America
10
11
12
13
/s/ Michael Cohen
________________________________
MICHAEL COHEN
Attorney at Law
Counsel for Plaintiff David Wasserman
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is to be filed on or before November 30, 2011. Planitiff’s
opposition to the motion is due on or before January 6, 2012. Defendant’s reply in support of the
motion is due on or before January 20, 2012. Defendant shall notice the motion for hearing on
February 7, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. The Court reserves the right to continue the hearing or decide the motion
without a hearing should the Court decide that it is appropriate to do so. The initial Case Management
9:00
Conference is continued from December 20, 2011 to February 7, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall
file a joint Case Management Conference Statement on or before January 31, 2012.
November 23, 2011
Dated: _________________
____________________________________
HON. ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Court Judge
No. C 11-2772 EDL STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND CONTINUING CMC
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?