Hansen v. City of San Francisco et al
Filing
48
ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARING; DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment filed by City of San Francisco, Denying at Moot 47 MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by Gared Hansen. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 6, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
GARED HANSEN,
Case No. 12-cv-04210-JST
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
ORDER VACATING MOTION
HEARING; DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION TO APPEAR BY
TELEPHONE
Re: ECF Nos. 36 & 47
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 36. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that the parties’
briefs have thoroughly addressed the issues, rendering the matter suitable for disposition without
oral argument. The hearing on this matter, currently scheduled for February 13, 2014, is hereby
VACATED.
However, if any party advises the Court in writing by no later than two days from the date
of this Order that most or all of the argument for its side will be conducted in person by a lawyer
who has been licensed to practice law for four or fewer years, and who has not previously
presented argument before this Court, then the Court will reschedule the hearing at a time that is
convenient to all parties in order to provide that opportunity. Any such notice should reflect the
date or dates on which the parties are available for the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
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?