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)
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?