Pace et al v. Bonham et al
Filing
21
ORDER Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/8/13 is continued to 5/10/2013 02:30 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 1/28/13., Motions terminated: 19 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER continuing Case Management Conference filed by Stafford Lehr, Charlton H. Bonham. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
TRACY L. WINSOR
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
RUSSELL B. HILDRETH (SBN 166167)
MARC N. MELNICK (SBN 168187)
Deputy Attorneys General
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
P.O. Box 70550
Oakland, CA 94612-0550
Telephone: (510) 622-2133
Fax: (510) 622-2270
E-mail: Marc.Melnick@doj.ca.gov
Russell.Hildreth@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants Charlton H. Bonham and
Stafford Lehr
10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
FELICE PACE; WILDERNESS WATCH,
v.
Case No. C-12-5610-SI-NJV
Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Courtroom:
Judge:
Trial Date:
Defendants. Action Filed:
CHARLTON H. BONHAM; STAFFORD LEHR,
10
Honorable S. Illston
None Set
November 1, 2012
20
21
22
Plaintiffs Felice Pace and Wilderness Watch and Defendants Charlton H. Bonham and
23
Stafford Lehr hereby stipulate to and respectfully request that the Court continue the Case
24
Management Conference currently set for February 8, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., for approximately
25
ninety (90) days, for the following reasons.
26
Defendants’ time to respond to the amended complaint runs on January 28, 2013.
27
Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss. The parties agree that the issues in this case are
28
largely, if not exclusively, issues of law, which can be decided on that motion to dismiss. If the
1.
STIP. & [PROP.] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (No. C-12-5610-SI-NJV)
1
Court grants the motion to dismiss, this case will be completed. If the Court denies the motion,
2
its determination will likely assist the parties in focusing this litigation. The parties also seek to
3
avoid the time, effort, and expense of preparing a joint case management statement, attending the
4
case management conference, and providing initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
5
Procedure 26(a)(1).
6
On January 17, 2013, the parties submitted their Notice of Need for ADR Phone
7
Conference, requesting an Early Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge. The parties are
8
willing to continue on that process, as the Court wishes.
9
Therefore, Plaintiffs Felice Pace and Wilderness Watch and Defendants Charlton H.
10
Bonham and Stafford Lehr hereby stipulate to continue the Case Management Conference
11
currently set for February 8, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., until May 10, 2013, or another date in early May
12
2013 that is convenient for the Court.
13
Dated: January 28, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
14
15
16
JULIA A. OLSON
Attorney for Plaintiffs Felice Pace and
Wilderness Watch
17
18
19
Dated: January 28, 2013
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
TRACY L. WINSOR
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
RUSSELL B. HILDRETH
Deputy Attorney General
20
21
22
23
/s/ Marc N. Melnick
24
MARC N. MELNICK
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants Charlton H.
Bonham and Stafford Lehr
25
26
27
28
2.
STIP. & [PROP.] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (No. C-12-5610-SI-NJV)
1
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The Case Management
2
10
Conference is continued from February 8, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., to May __, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.
3
DATED: 1/28/13
4
___________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
5
6
7
OK2011202302
90287236.doc
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
STIP. & [PROP.] ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (No. C-12-5610-SI-NJV)
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?