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)

Download PDF
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?