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)

Download PDF
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?