Greenspan v. Paul Hastings LLP

Filing 5

ORDER granting 4 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 3 Notice (Other) Hearing Date and Briefing Schedule on Motion for Partial Withdrawal. Reset Deadlines as to 1 Withdrawal of Reference Responses due by 11/9/2012. Replies due by 11/23/2012. Motion Hearing reset for 12/14/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 11/2/2012. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2012)

Download PDF
Case3:12-cv-05305-CRB Document4 Filed10/25/12 Page1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 DAVID GOULD, APC DAVID GOULD, SBN 37947 23975 Park Sorrento, Suite 200 Calabasas, CA 91302-4011 Telephone: (818) 222 8092 Facsimile: (818) 449 4803 dgould@davidgouldlaw.com Counsel for Ronald F. Greenspan Chapter 7 Trustee for Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 Calabasas, California David Gould, APC 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ) ) BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP, ) ) ) Debtor. ) ) ) ) ) RONALD F. GREENSPAN, Chapter 7 Trustee ) ) for Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) PAUL HASTINGS, LLP, ) ) Defendant. ) ) In re District Court Case No. 12-05305 (CRB) BK Case No. 03-32715 (DM) Chapter 7 Adv. Pro. No. 11-03229 (DM) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PAUL HASTINGS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED DECISION BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ON DISPOSITIVE STATE LAW ISSUES 22 23 This stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiff, Ronald F. Greenspan, Chapter 7 24 Trustee for Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, LLP (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant Paul Hastings LLP 25 (successor to Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP) (“Paul Hastings”). 26 27 WHEREAS, Paul Hastings filed a Motion for Partial Withdrawal of the Reference, Or in the Alternative, Partial Withdrawal in Conjunction with a Proposed Decision by the Bankruptcy Court 28 -1CASE NO. 12-05305 (CRB) McKool 836016v1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE HEARING DATE ON MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE Case3:12-cv-05305-CRB Document4 Filed10/25/12 Page2 of 2 1 on Dispositive State Law Issues (“Motion”) with the Bankruptcy Court on September 7, 2012; 2 WHEREAS, the Motion was transferred to the District Court and filed on October 18, 2012; 3 WHEREAS, Paul Hastings initially set the Motion for hearing on December 7, 2012, at 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10:00 a.m.; WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel, David Gould, will be traveling out of the country on a preplanned trip on that day; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff and the Paul Hastings Defendants wish to set a mutually convenient hearing date and briefing schedule for the Motion; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, either for themselves or through their counsel, that: The hearing on the Motion shall be on December 14, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 2. Plaintiff’s opposition shall be filed on or before November 9, 2012. 13 3. Defendant’s reply shall be filed on or before November 23, 2012. Dated: October 25, 2012 15 RONALD F. GREENSPAN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE FOR BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP 16 By: 14 17 _/s/ David Gould_________________ David Gould, Counsel 18 19 Dated: October 25, 2012 PAUL HASTINGS LLP (Successor to Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP) 20 By: IRELL & MANELLA LLP 21 _/s/ Marc S. Maister________________ Marc S. Maister, Counsel 22 23 S RT ER H 28 -2CASE NO. 12-05305 (CRB) R NIA Judge C FO . Breyer harles R NO 27 LI 26 ED PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. ORDER T IS SO I Dated: _________________ , 2012 _______________________________ November 1 United States District Judge A 25 RT U O 24 ISTRIC ES D TC AT T UNIT ED Calabasas, California 1. 12 David Gould, APC 11 C F D I SORDERT OHEARING STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] T R I C RE N DATE ON MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE McKool 836016v1

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?