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)

Download PDF
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?