Chaitin-Lefcourt v. City and County of San Francisco
Filing
73
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 72 TO AMEND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER. Case Management Statement due by 7/14/2022. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/21/2022 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only. Jury Selecti on/Trial set for 1/3/2023 09:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Pretrial Conference set for 12/21/2022 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Signed by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/7/2022. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2022)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Jianlin Song (SBN 289226)
Jianlin.Song@wilsonelser.com
Peter Catalanotti (SBN 230743)
Peter.Catalanott@wilsonelser.com
Jenny Chien (SBN 327918)
Jenny.Chien@wilsonelser.com
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,
EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
525 Market Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-0990
Facsimile:
(415) 434-1370
7
8
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant
HEALTHRIGHT 360 (erroneously sued as HEALTHRIGHT 360, INC.)
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
ADAM CHAITIN-LEFCOURT,
13
Case No. 3:20-cv-05822-RS
Plaintiff,
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND
INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
SCHEDULING ORDER AND
ORDER
vs.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, a political subdivision of the
State of California, SAN FRANCISCO
POLICE DEPARTMENT; SFPD OFC
CHRISTOPHER M. DUNNE #1775; SFPD
OFC NASER #4289; SFPD OFC CHEW
#2088; SFPD OFC TOM #621; SFPD OFC
CHAVARIN #77; ANOTHER PLANET
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; ADMIRAL
SECURITY SERVICES, INC.; ASHLEY
SAJLIAGA SALMIA; and DOES I through X,
inclusive,
Complaint filed: August 18, 2020
Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
ANOTHER PLANET ENTERTAINMENT,
LLC,
Cross-complainant,
vs.
IPS SECURITY, INC.; HEALTHRIGHT 360,
INC. and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,
26
Cross-defendants.
27
28
1
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
265022488v.1
1
On August 19, 2021, this Court issued an Initial Case Management Scheduling Order setting
2
this case for trial (Docket No. 66). The Court set trial to commence on October 3, 2022 at 9:00
3
a.m., and a final pretrial conference on September 21, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. The Court also set all
4
corresponding pretrial deadlines.
5
On November 23, 2021, Cross-Defendant HealthRight 360 (“HR 360”) and Cross-
6
Complainant Another Planet Entertainment, LLC (“Another Planet”) filed a Stipulation to Set Aside
7
Default Judgment and to Deem HR 360’s Answer to Cross-Complaint Filed. (Docket No. 70) On
8
November 24, 2021, the Court granted the said Stipulation and vacated default judgment against
9
HR 360. (Docket No. 71)
10
As HR 360 has just joined this action, all parties in this action have stipulated to amend the
11
Court’s Initial Case Management Scheduling Order to extend the trial date, pretrial conference date,
12
and all pretrial deadlines by a period of 90 days.
13
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and among all parties in this action, through their
14
respective counsel of record, that the trial dates and pretrial deadlines be continued as follows:
15
1. The parties agree that fact discovery cutoff date is extended to July 15, 2022;
16
2. The parties agree that expert designation deadline is extended to August 15, 2022;
17
3. The parties agree that supplemental and rebuttal expert designation deadline is extended
18
to September 12, 2022;
19
4. The parties agree that expert discover cutoff date is extended to October 3, 2022;
20
5. The parties agree that a further Case Management Conference is extended to July 21,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2022 at 10:00 a.m., or on any later date at the Court’s convenience;
6. The parties agree that dispositive pretrial motions, including motion for summary
judgment, shall be heard no later than October 27, 2022;
7. The parties agree that the final pretrial conference shall be held on December 21, 2022 at
10:00 a.m., or on any later date at the Court’s convenience;
8. The parties agree that a jury trial shall commence on January 3, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., or on
any later date at the Court’s convenience.
28
2
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
265022488v.1
1
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD SIGNED BELOW:
2
Dated: January 7, 2022
3
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER
LLP
4
By: /s/ Jianlin Song
Jianlin Song, Esq.
Peter Catalanotti, Esq.
Jenny Chien, Esq.
Attorneys for Cross-Defendant
HEALTHRIGHT 360, INC
E-signature authorized on Jan 7, 2022
5
6
7
8
Dated: January 7, 2022
KERN SEGAL & MURRAY
9
10
By: /s/ Phillip Segal
Phillip Segal Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Adam Chaitin-Lefcourt
E-signature authorized on Jan 7, 2022
11
12
13
14
15
Dated: January 6, 2022
MICHEL & FACKLER
16
17
By:
Michael D. Michel, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kirk, Esq.
Attorneys for Cross-complainant
ANOTHER PLANET ENTERTAINMENT
18
19
20
21
22
Dated: January 7, 2022
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
23
24
25
26
By: /s/ Ryan Stevens
Ryan Stevens, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
City and County of San Francisco
E-signature authorized on Jan 7, 2022
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
265022488v.1
1
Dated: January 7, 2022
KASEM, KO & AHMED
2
3
By: /s/ Ahmed Kasem
Ahmed Kasem
Attorney for Defendant
Admiral Security Inc.
E-signature authorized on Jan 7, 2022
4
5
6
7
8
ORDER
9
The Court, having considered the STIPULATION and having found GOOD CAUSE
10
APPEARING,
11
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
12
The Initial Case Management Scheduling Order is amended and the trial date and all pretrial
13
deadlines set forth therein are extended as the parties have stipulated.
14
15
16
7
Dated: January ___, 2022
17
18
19
By:
Honorable Richard Seeborg
Chief United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
265022488v.1
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?