Hernandez v. Pereira et al
Filing
44
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 43 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Setting Case Management Schedule and Selecting ADR Process - filed by Daniel Hernandez. Fact discovery cut-off 2/13/2017. Expert disclosures deadline 3/6/2017. Expert reb uttal deadline 3/27/2017. Expert discovery cut-off 4/17/2017. Dispositive motions due 5/8/2017. Pretrial Conference statements due 7/3/2017. Pretrial Conference set for 7/21/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. Jury Trial set for 8/14/2017 - 8/24/2017 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 3, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
Mortimer H. Hartwell, Bar No. 154556
mhartwell@velaw.com
Vincent Barredo, Bar No. 275518
vbarredo@velaw.com
555 Mission Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0923
Tel: +1.415.979.6900
Fax: +1.415.651.8786
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Daniel Hernandez
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
DANIEL HERNANDEZ,
12
13
14
15
Case No. 3:15-cv-00796
Plaintiff,
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER SETTING CASE
MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND
SELECTING ADR PROCESS
vs.
FRANK PEREIRA, et al.,
Judge:
Dept.:
Defendants.
Hon. Jon S. Tigar
Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
16
17
18
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Daniel Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant
19
City and County of San Francisco (“Defendant,” and jointly with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), through
20
their respective counsel of record herein, hereby agree and stipulate to the following:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND SELECTING
ADR PROCESS
1
2
3
4
5
STIPULATION
WHEREAS, the Parties previously stipulated on June 22, 2015, to the ADR process of
Mediation to be completed after the hearing on dispositive motions (dkt. no. 11);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw (dkt. no. 23), and it was
granted by the Court on October 14, 2015 (dkt. no. 25);
6
WHEREAS, Plaintiff appeared pro per at the Court’s Initial Case Management
7
Conference held on February 10, 2016 (dkt. no. 30), and the Further Case Management
8
Conference on March 9, 2016 (dkt. no. 33) and filed a Case Management Statement on his own
9
behalf (dkt. no. 32);
10
WHEREAS, the Court’s scheduling order entered on March 25, 2016, set the following
11
deadlines: (1) deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings was March 8, 2016; (2) fact
12
discovery cut-off was September 30, 2016; (3) expert disclosures were due October 21, 2016; (4)
13
expert rebuttal deadline was November 11, 2016; (5) expert discovery cut-off was December 2,
14
2016; (6) deadline to file dispositive motions was December 23, 2016; (7) pretrial conference
15
statement was due March 14, 2017; (8) pretrial conference was set for March 24, 2017; and (9)
16
jury trial was set for April 17, 2017;
17
18
19
WHEREAS, the case was reassigned to Defendant’s undersigned counsel, Ms. Renée
Erickson, on March 29, 2016 (dkt. no. 35);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel for Limited Scope
20
Representation (dkt. no. 36), and the Court referred this matter to the Federal Pro Bono Project
21
for appointment of counsel for the purposes of a Settlement Conference (dkt. no. 38);
22
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2016, the Court appointed Plaintiff’s undersigned counsel for the
23
limited scope of representing Plaintiff at Settlement Conference and stayed the case for four
24
weeks (dkt. no. 39);
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Parties and their counsel met and conferred, and agreed to participate in a
Settlement Conference prior to the filing of dispositive motions;
WHEREAS, the Parties filed a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference (dkt. no. 41)
and held a phone conference with Mr. Howard Herman, Director of ADR Program, on September
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND SELECTING
ADR PROCESS
1
26, 2016, and discussed the Parties’ interest in participating in a Settlement Conference with a
2
Magistrate Judge prior to dispositive motions, instead of Mediation after the hearing on
3
dispositive motions;
4
5
6
WHEREAS, during that phone conference, the Parties were informed of the 60 to 90 days
that it takes to get a Settlement Conference on a Magistrate Judge’s calendar;
WHEREAS, the Parties determined that the trial date and case management schedule
7
should be moved to accommodate the time needed to participate in a Settlement Conference and
8
potentially resolve this matter;
9
10
11
12
WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred to establish a mutually agreeable,
modified case management schedule and trial date;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court for the
following case management schedule and ADR process:
13
1.
This matter shall be moved out of the Court’s Mediation program
14
2.
Parties shall participate in a Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge
15
3.
Fact discovery cut-off is February 13, 2017
16
4.
Expert disclosures deadline is March 6, 2017
17
5.
Expert rebuttal deadline is March 27, 2017
18
6.
Expert discovery cut-off is April 17, 2017
19
7.
Parties shall file dispositive motions by May 8, 2017
20
8.
Parties shall file pretrial conference statements by July 3, 2017
21
9.
Pretrial conference shall be July 21, 2017
22
10.
Jury trial shall be set for August 14, 2017
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND SELECTING
ADR PROCESS
1
Dated: September 30, 2016
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
2
3
By:
/s/
MORTIMER H. HARTWELL
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Daniel
Hernandez
By:
/s/
VINCENT BARREDO
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Daniel
Hernandez
By:
/s/
DANIEL HERNANDEZ
Plaintiff
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Dated: September 30, 2016
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
13
By:
14
15
16
/s/
RENÉE ERICKSON
Attorneys for Defendant, City and
County of San Francisco
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND SELECTING
ADR PROCESS
1
DECLARATION OF VINCENT BARREDO
2
I, Vincent Barredo, hereby declare as follows:
3
1.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I am an associate with the law firm of Vinson & Elkins LLP, attorneys of record
for Plaintiff Daniel Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) in this action.
2.
I am licensed to practice law before the courts of the State of California and before
this Court.
3.
I make this declaration in support of the Parties’ Stipulation Setting Case
Management Schedule and Selecting ADR Process.
4.
I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called as a witness
to testify as to such matters, I could and would testify competently thereto.
5.
The Parties previously stipulated on June 22, 2015, to the ADR process of
12
Mediation to be completed after the hearing on dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew
13
on October 14, 2015, and a case management schedule was set while Plaintiff was representing
14
himself pro per.
15
6.
16
17
18
19
I was appointed on June 13, 2015, as Plaintiff’s counsel, for the limited purpose of
representation at a Settlement Conference.
7.
The Parties and their counsel met and conferred, and agreed to participate in a
Settlement Conference prior to the filing of dispositive motions.
8.
The Parties held a phone conference with Mr. Howard Herman, Director of ADR
20
Program, on September 26, 2016, and discussed the Parties’ interest in participating in a
21
Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge prior to filing dispositive motions, instead of
22
Mediation after the hearing on dispositive motions. The Parties also discussed the 60 to 90 days
23
that it takes to get a Settlement Conference on a Magistrate Judge’s calendar.
24
9.
The Parties determined that the trial date and case management schedule should be
25
moved to accommodate the time needed to participate in a Settlement Conference and potentially
26
resolve this matter.
27
10.
28
The Parties have met and conferred to establish a mutually agreeable modified
case management schedule and trial date.
5
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND SELECTING
ADR PROCESS
1
2
3
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on this 30th day of September, 2016, in San Francisco, California.
4
/s/
VINCENT BARREDO
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND SELECTING
ADR PROCESS
1
2
FILER’S ATTESTATION
I, Vincent Barredo, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to
3
file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Setting Case Management Schedule and Selecting ADR
4
Process. Pursuant to L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in the electronic filing of this
5
document has been obtained from each of the other signatories.
6
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
7
8
By: /s/
___________________
VINCENT BARREDO
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND SELECTING
ADR PROCESS
1
ORDER
2
Pursuant to the Stipulation between the Parties, it is hereby ORDERED that:
3
1.
This matter shall be moved out of the Court’s Mediation program
4
2.
Parties shall participate in a Settlement Conference before a Magistrate Judge
5
3.
Fact discovery cut-off is February 13, 2017
6
4.
Expert disclosures deadline is March 6, 2017
7
5.
Expert rebuttal deadline is March 27, 2017
8
6.
Expert discovery cut-off is April 17, 2017
9
7.
Parties shall file dispositive motions by May 8, 2017
10
8.
Parties shall file pretrial conference statements by July 3, 2017
11
9.
Pretrial conference shall be July 21, 2017
12
10.
Jury trial shall be set for August 14, 2017
13
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2016
________________________________
Hon. Jon S. Tigar
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND SELECTING
ADR PROCESS
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?