Stevenson et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 15

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The case management conference set for January 20, 2012 is continued to March 2, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. The dates set forth in the Court's October 6, 2011 scheduling order are extended 42 days. The parties shall submit a joint case management conference no later than seven days before March 2, 2012. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 9, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
ELIZABETH S SALVESON, State Bar #83788
Chief Labor Attorney
JONATHAN ROLNICK, State Bar #151814
Deputy City Attorney
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
11
12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AARON C. STEVENSON and KEVIN D.
TAYLOR,

13

Plaintiffs,

14

vs.

15
16
17
18

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, THE SAN FRANCISCO FIRE
DEPARTMENT, THE SAN FRANCISCO
FIRE COMMISSION, and THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION OF SAN
FRANCISCO,
Defendants.

Case No. CV 11 4950 MMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE ; ORDER THEREON
Hearing Date:
Time:
Place:

January 20, 2012
10:30 a.m.
Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
Courtroom G
U.S. District Court
450 Golden Gate Ave. San
Francisco, CA

Trial Date:

N/A

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

An initial case management conference in the above-captioned matter currently is scheduled to
occur on Friday, January 20, 2012. Deputy City Attorney Gina Roccanova, who originally had been
assigned to defend this action on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, recently resigned
from the Office of the City Attorney. Deputy City Attorney Jonathan Rolnick substituted in as lead
counsel on December 27, 2011.
Given this recent substitution, Deputy City Attorney Rolnick has not had sufficient time to
review and evaluate the factual and legal issues involved in this action so as to engage in a meaningful

28
STEVENSON, ET AL. vs. CCSF, ET AL.
CASE NO. CV 11 4950 MMC

1

n:\labor\li2011\120415\00746866.doc

1

exchange of with plaintiffs' counsel as required by Federal Rule 26 and the Court's October 6, 2011

2

scheduling order in this case, or to prepare a joint case management conference statement.

3

According, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES, that the

4

January 20, 2012 case management be continued 42-days to March 2, 2012, or as soon thereafter as

5

the conference may be scheduled, to provide the parties with additional time to prepare for the initial

6

case management conference. The parties further seek a corresponding extension of the other dates set

7

forth in the October 6 scheduling order.

8
9

Dated: January 4, 2012

10
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
ELIZABETH S. SALVESON
Chief Labor Attorney
JONATHAN ROLNICK
Deputy City Attorney

11
12
13
14
15

By:

16

/s/
JONATHAN ROLNICK

Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

17
18
19

Dated: January 4, 2012

20
21

By:

/s/
MURLENE J. RANDLE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STEVENSON, ET AL. vs. CCSF, ET AL.
CASE NO. CV 11 4950 MMC

2

n:\labor\li2011\120415\00746866.doc

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2
3

For good cause appearing, the case management currently set for January 20, 2012 is hereby

4

continued to March 2, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. The dates set forth in the Court's October 6, 2011

5

scheduling order are also extended 42-days to provide additional time for the parties to satisfy their

6

obligations set forth therein. The parties shall submit a joint case management conference statement

7

no later than seven days before the March 2 conference.

8

Dated: January 9 2012
__,
_________________________________________
JUDGE MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Court

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STEVENSON, ET AL. vs. CCSF, ET AL.
CASE NO. CV 11 4950 MMC

3

n:\labor\li2011\120415\00746866.doc