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)

Download PDF
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?