Murakami et al v. GC Services, L.P.
Filing
20
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for Settlement re 18 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Selecting Early Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge filed by Ken Murakami, Carolyn Murakami. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/23/18. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2018)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Ken and Carolyn Murakami
CASE No C 3:18-cv-1499-EMC
Plaintiff(s)
v.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS
ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GC Services, L.P.,
FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Defendant(s)
Counsel report that they have met and conferred 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:
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
s
Early Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge (ADR L.R. 7)
Private ADR (specify process and provider)
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
s
the presumptive deadline (90 days from the date of the order referring the case to ADR)
other requested deadline:
Date: May 17, 2018
Date: May 17, 2018
Trinette G. Kent
Attorney for Plaintiff
Farheena A. Habib
Attorney for Defendant
xx
IT IS SO ORDERED . This case is referred to magistrate
IT IS SO ORDERED WITH MODIFICATIONS: conference.
judge for settlement
Settlement conference
UNIT
ED
5/23/18
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
ORDER
RT
U
O
Date:
S
is to be held within 90 days.
ED
A
. Chen
dward M
Judge E
FO
NO
R NIA
O
IT IS S
U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE
IFIED
S MOD
LI
H
Form ADR-Stip rev. 5-1-2018
A
RT
Important! E-file this form in ECF using the appropriate event among these choices: “Stipulation & Proposed
ER
Order Selecting Mediation” or “Stipulation & Proposed Order Selecting ENE” or “Stipulation & Proposed
C
N
F
D IS T IC T O
Order Selecting Private ADR.”
R
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?