Tennison v. City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 553

ORDER re 552 GRANTING STIPULATION CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management Conference set for 12/16/2008 02:00 PM.. Signed by Judge CLAUDIA WILKEN on 10/15/08. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP ELLIOT R. PETERS - #158708 DANIEL PURCELL - #191424 STEVEN P. RAGLAND - #221076 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 COLEMAN & BALOGH LLP ETHAN A. BALOGH ­ #172224 255 Kansas Street, Suite 340 San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 565-9600 Facsimile: (415) 565-9601 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN TENNISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN TENNISON, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT; PRENTICE EARL SANDERS; and NAPOLEON HENDRIX, Defendants. Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 427699.01 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RECITAL The Court's Case Management Order of April 6, 2006, set a further case management conference in this matter for October 6, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. The Order noted, "If no decision is made by the Ninth Circuit [regarding pending appeals of this Court's partial denial of defendants' summary judgment motions] by October 6, 2006, the parties can stipulate to continue the Case Management Conference." On October 2, 2006, this Court ordered that the Case Management Conference be continued until June 8, 2007. On May 14, 2007, this Court issued a Clerk's Notice, which rescheduled the Case Management Conference for June 12, 2007. On June 1, 2007, this Court ordered that the Case Management Conference be continued until August 7, 2007. The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in this case on July 12, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.. On July 30, 2007, this Court ordered that the Case Management Conference be continued until December 4, 2007. On November 28, 2007, this Court ordered that the Case Management Conference be continued until February 12, 2008. On February 4, 2008, this Court ordered that the Case Management Conference be continued until March 25, 2008. On March 14, 2008, this Court ordered that the Case Management Conference be continued until June 10, 2008. On May 21, 2008, the Ninth Circuit vacated the submission of the appeals pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, No. 07-854, 2008 WL 1699467 (U.S. Apr. 14, 2008). On June 9, 2008, this Court ordered that the Case Management Conference be continued until September 9, 2008. /// 1 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW 427699.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On September 11, 2008, this Court ordered that the Case Management Conference be continued until October 21, 2008. On September 22, 2008, pursuant to a request by plaintiff Antoine Goff, the Ninth Circuit ordered defendant George Butterworth's appeal dismissed, remanded Goff's claims against Butterworth to this Court for the limited purpose of entering judgment against Goff and in favor of Butterworth, and ordered the remaining appeals resubmitted. As of today, the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the pending appeals. The parties agree that it would be a waste of time and judicial resources for the Court to hold a case management conference prior to entry of a decision by the Ninth Circuit. STIPULATION For the forgoing reasons, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, stipulate and agree to entry of an order continuing the further case management conference from October 21, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. to December 16, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.. Should the Ninth Circuit dispose of the pending appeals before that date, the parties will notify the Court so that the date of the further Case Management Conference may be advanced. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: October 14, 2008 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP By: /s/ Daniel Purcell ____________________ DANIEL PURCELL Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN TENNISON Dated: October 14, 2008 THE SCOTT LAW FIRM By: /s/ John Houston Scott _______________ JOHN HOUSTON SCOTT Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTOINE GOFF 2 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW 427699.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 14, 2008 MOSCONE, EMBLIDGE & QUADRA By: /s/ James A. Quadra _________________ JAMES A. QUADRA Attorneys for Defendants PRENTICE EARL SANDERS and NAPOLEON HENDRIX Dated: October 14, 2008 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By: /s/ Christine Van Aken _______________ CHRISTINE VAN AKEN Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and GEORGE BUTTERWORTH FILER'S ATTESTATION I, Daniel Purcell, the filer of this document, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto. By: /s/ Daniel Purcell ____________________ DANIEL PURCELL 3 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW 427699.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER GOOD CAUSE showing, it is hereby ordered that the further case management conference be continued pursuant to the terms of the foregoing stipulation. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10/15 Dated: _____________, 2008 THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No. C 04-00574 CW Consolidated with Case No. C 04-01643 CW 427699.01

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?