McKinzie v. Faber

Filing 12

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. The hearing on the motion for contempt is continued from February 24, 2012 to June 29, 2012. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 23, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2012)

Download PDF
S ER Attorneys for Petitioner DONNA MCKINZIE Dated: February 23, 2012 6 R NIA FO LI Ju A H 5 ey . Chesn xine M dge Ma RT 4 DERED O OR IT IS S NO 3 UNIT ED 2 DAVID J. HOFMANN -- BAR NO. 42047 CATOSHA L. WOODS -- BAR NO. 228640 HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. 4309 Hacienda Drive, Suite 350 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925-224-7780 Fax: 925-224-7782 RT U O 1 S DISTRICT TE C TA N F D IS T IC T O R C UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 9 10 DONNA MCKINZIE Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 vs. DANE STEPHEN FABER, Respondent. No. CV-11-80303 MMC MISC NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF CONTEMPT HEARING Date: Time: Dept.: Judge: February 24, 2012 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 7, 19th Floor Honorable Maxine Chesney 15 16 Petitioner hereby seeks a continuance of the Motion for Contempt currently set for 17 hearing on Friday, February 24, 2012 in the above captioned court on the grounds that the 18 Petitioner and the party to be held in contempt have reached a conditional agreement to 19 resolve the dispute. All of the acts to be performed in satisfaction of the parties’ 20 agreements should occur in 90 days, by which time, Petitioner expects to file a notice of 21 satisfaction of the underlying Judgment and will request dismissal of this miscellaneous 22 action. As such, Petitioner requests a continuance to June 29, 2012. 23 DATED: February 22, 2012 Respectfully submitted, HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. 24 25 By /S/ Catosha L. Woods Attorneys for Petitioner Donna McKinzie 26 27 28 -1Motion for Continuance \\HFJAFS\NDrive\84203\Ple\887945.doc

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?