McEnroe v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC

Filing 42

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 40 Stipulation selecting Mediation. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2015)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SARA McENROE CASE NO. IS-cv-02190-HSG Plaintiff(s), STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC Defendant(s). Counsel report that they have met and confelTed regarding ADR and have reached the following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5: The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process: Court Processes: NOll-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4) Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5) Mediation (ADR L.R. 6) o o [Z] (Note: Parties who believe that an early seUlemenl conference with a Magistrate Judge is appreciably> more like(y 10 meet their needs than anyotherjorm ofADR must participate in an ADR phone conference and may 110t jile this form. They must instead file a Notice o{Needfor ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Locaillule 16-8 and ADR L.1I. 3-5) ,.f:{ivate Process: Private ADR (please identify process and provider) U The parties agree to hold the ADR session by: the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 daysfi'om the date of the order referring the case to an ADR process unLess otherwise ordered,) o [Z] other requested deadline _October 1, 2016 12/2/15 /s/ Lisa C. Hamasaki Attorney for Defendant CONTINUE TO FOLLOWING PAGE (PROPOSED) ORDER o o x The pmties' stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED. The parties' stipulation is modified as follows, and IT IS SO ORDERED. The mediation deadline is August 10, 2016. Dated: 12/4/2015 DISTRICT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATEJUDGE When filing this document in ECF, please be sure to use the appropriate Docket Event, e.g., "Stipulation and Proposed Order Seleeting Mediation." Rev, Uill Pago;2 of2

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?