Austin v. The County of Alameda et al
Filing
89
STIPULATION AND ORDER RESETTING DEADLINE FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND RESETTING CMC. Case Management Statement due by 2/28/2017. Further Case Management Conference reset for 3/7/2017 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/24/16. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2016)
1
6
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Melanie M. Blunschi (Bar No. 234264)
Anna E. Berces (Bar No. 287548)
Morgan Whitworth (Bar No. 304907)
melanie.blunschi@lw.com
anna.berces@lw.com
morgan.whitworth@lw.com
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jamal Austin
2
3
4
5
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
JAMAL AUSTIN,
12
Case No.: 3:15-cv-00942-EMC
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING DEADLINE TO COMPLETE
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA ET AL.,
AND RESETTING FURTHER CMC
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2016, the Court set the deadline for completing the settlement
conference in this case for October 21, 2016 (Dkt. No. 65);
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2016, the Court appointed the undersigned attorneys from
Latham & Watkins LLP to represent Plaintiff Jamal Austin for the limited purpose of
representing Plaintiff in the course of the settlement conference (Dkt. No. 78);
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2016, the parties stipulated to continue the settlement
conference before Judge Elizabeth Laporte to a date beyond October 21, 2016 (Dkt. No. 86);
WHEREAS, the parties are conferring with Judge Laporte’s chambers in order to
determine a mutually agreeable alternative date for the settlement conference, but no date has yet
been confirmed;
NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned parties, by and through their counsel of record,
stipulate as follows:
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No.: 3:15-cv-00942-EMC
1
1.
2
The deadline for completing the settlement conference, currently set for October
21, 2016, is vacated.
3
2.
4
The deadline for completing the settlement conference will be extended by an
additional 120 days from the date this Order is entered.
5
6
DATED: October 21, 2016
By: /s/ Melanie M. Blunschi
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Melanie M. Blunschi
505 Montgomery St. Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
anna.berces@lw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jamal Austin
DATED: October 21, 2016
By: /s/ Amy Leifur Halby
BERTRAND, FOX, ELLIOT,
OSMAN & WENZEL
Amy Leifur Halby
The Waterfront Building
2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: (415) 353-0999
Fax: (415) 353-0990
ahalby@bfesf.com
Attorneys for Defendants
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. THE LAST DAY TO COMPLETE
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IS 2/21/17.
AN UPDATED JOINT CMC STATEMENT SHALL BE FILED BY 2/28/17.
DATED:
10/24/16
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
Edward M. Chen
OO
IT IS S
DIFIED
AS MO
NO
H
ER
LI
RT
25
26
. Chen
dward M
Judge E
A
24
UNIT
ED
23
RT
U
O
Hon.
United StatesRDERED Judge
District
S
22
A.M.
THE 11/8/16 CMC IS RESET FOR 3/7/17 AT 10:30
R NIA
21
FO
20
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No.: 3:15-cv-00942-EMC
1
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
2
I am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the foregoing
3
Stipulation and [Proposed] Rescheduling Order. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding
4
signatures, I, Melanie M. Blunschi, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been
5
obtained.
6
DATED: October 21, 2016
7
8
/s/ Melanie M. Blunschi
Melanie M. Blunschi
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No.: 3:15-cv-00942-EMC
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?