McMillin v. Foster City et al
Filing
21
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [re 20 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER]. Case Management Statement due by 5/3/2012. Case Management Conference set for 5/10/2012 03:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/9/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2012)
1
2
3
Russell A. Robinson (163937)
Law Office of Russell A. Robinson
345 Grove Street, Level One
San Francisco CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 255-0462
Facsimile: (415) 431-4526
4
5
Counsel for Plaintiff
TOM McMILLIN
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
TOM McMILLIN,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
FOSTER CITY, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
) No. C-11-3201-WHA
)
) STIPULATED REQUEST TO
) CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT
) CONFERENCE; ORDER
)
April 19, 2012
) Date:
3:00 p.m.
) Time:
)
) Honorable William H. Alsup
16
TO THE HONORABLE COURT HEREIN:
17
THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
18
There presently is set a case management herein for April 19, 2012, at
19
3:00 p.m.
Plaintiff’s counsel likely will be in trial in Alameda County in the matter
20
21
Cacianti v. Ratto, and thus likely will be unavailable for the April 19, 2012,
22
CMC before this Court.
As a result of the meet and confer process, the parties agreed on a
23
24
date by which Plaintiff will file a first amended complaint. The parties have
25
also agreed information Plaintiff believes relevant may be discovered through
26
a subpoena served on the State of California, Department of Consumer
27
Affairs, and production pursuant to that subpoena has not been completed.
28
///
____________________________________________________________________________________
McMillin v. Foster City, et al.
P041STIP
STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC;
ORDER
The parties’ counsel have met and conferred and are in the process of
1
2
submitting timely their joint case management statement.
After conferring on a new date, all counsel agree they are available on
3
4
Thursday, May 10, 2012, at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the Court
5
may set this matter.
Therefore, based on the above, the parties hereby request that the
6
7
Court re-schedule the initial Case Management Conference to May 10, 2012.
8
9
Date:
April 9, 2012
Russell A. Robinson /s/
By: Russell A. Robinson
Law Office of Russell A. Robinson
Counsel for Plaintiff
TOM McMILLIN
Date:
April 9, 2012
Joseph C. Howard, Jr. /s/
By: Joseph C. Howard, Jr.
Howard Rome Martin & Ridley, LLP
Counsel for Defendants
FOSTER CITY, FOSTER CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, DOUGLAS NIX, and
PIERRE MORRISON
Date:
April 9, 2012
Daniel J. Valim /s/
By: Daniel J. Valim
Office of County Counsel
County of San Mateo
Counsel for Defendants
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, VISHAL
DINESH JANGLA, and ALPANA DAMODAR
SAMANT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
///
____________________________________________________________________________________
McMillin v. Foster City, et al.
P041STIP
STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC;
-2ORDER
ORDER
1
Based on the above stipulated request, and good cause appearing, it is
2
hereby ordered as follows:
The case management conference set for April 19, 2012, at 3:00 p.m.,
4
8
11
S
D
AS MO
ls
illiam A
Judge W
ER
H
14
RT
13
Honorable WILLIAM H. ALSUP
Judge, United StatesDERED Court
R District
IS SO O FIED
Northern District of California
IT
I
NO
12
9
April ___, 2012
UNIT
ED
10
Date:
RT
U
O
9
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
R NIA
7
up
FO
6
3:00
is hereby continued to Thursday, May 10
___, 2012, at ______p.m. The
A joint statement is due at least seven days prior.
parties need not file a new joint case management conference statement.
THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER CONTINUANCES.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LI
5
A
3
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
____________________________________________________________________________________
McMillin v. Foster City, et al.
P041STIP
STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CMC;
-3ORDER
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?