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)

Download PDF
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?