Hall v. Apartment Investment and Management Company

Filing 125

ORDER Granting re 124 Stipulation Requesting an Order for Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date for Motions for Summary Judgment. Case Management Statement due by 1/13/2011. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/20/2011 02:00 PM. Motion Hearing set for 1/20/2011 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/23/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2010) Modified on 11/23/2010 (ndr, COURT STAFF). ** Disregard see docket no. 126 **

Hall v. Apartment Investment and Management Company

Doc. 125

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
0BUNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY HALL, FAUSTO AGUILAR, GONZALO AGUILAR, CHARLES CHILTON, DOUGLAS GIVENS, ROBERT IVY, QUINCY MOUTON, RICHARD RANKIN, HECTOR RODRIGUEZ, LLOYD THIBEAUX, ARNULFO CARRANZARIVAS, TERRY MACKEY, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND ) MANAGEMENT COMPANY, AIMCO ) CAPITAL, INC., FORTNEY & WEYGANDT, INC., IMR CONTRACTOR ) ) CORPORATION, BAY BUILDING SERVICES, BAY AREA CONSTRUCTION ) ) FRAMERS, INC., ALL HALLOWS ) PRESERVATION, L.P., BAYVIEW ) PRESERVATION, L.P., LA SALLE ) PRESERVATION, L.P., SHOREVIEW ) PRESERVATION, L.P. and DOES 1-50, ) ) Defendants. )

Case No. 08-CV-3447 CW

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING AN ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COME NOW Plaintiffs and Defendants Apartment Investment and Management Company, AIMCO Capital Inc., All Hallows Preservation, L.P., Bayview Preservation, L.P., La Salle Preservation, L.P., and Shoreview Preservation, L.P. (collectively the "AIMCO Defendants"), Fortney & Weygandt, Inc., who respectfully make this stipulated joint request, pursuant to Local Rules 56-1, 7-2 and 7-3, for an order setting a briefing schedule and re-setting the date to hear Defendants'
__________________________________________________________________________

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING AN ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HALL v. AIMCO INC., Case No. 08-CV-3447 CW Page 1
Dockets.Justia.com

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

Motions for Summary Judgment. The AIMCO Defendants, as well as Defendant Fortney & Weygandt, Inc., will file summary judgment motions attempting to dispose of all claims against each of them. These will be lengthy, complex motions both in terms of fact and law. (Defendants IMR Contractor Corp. and Bay Area Construction Framers, Inc. will not be filing a motion for summary judgment; Defendant Bay Building Services, Inc. is in default). The commentary to Local Rule 7-2 states: The time periods set forth in Civil L.R. 7-2 and 7-3 regarding notice, response and reply to motions are minimum time periods. For complex motions, parties are encouraged to stipulate to or seek a Court order establishing a longer notice period with correspondingly longer periods for response or reply. The parties have met and conferred over the issue of Plaintiffs having only two weeks under the Local Rules to respond to two complex motions for summary judgment. Under the current schedule, the last date for hearing dispositive motions is January 6, 2011. This would yield a last day for filing of December 2, 2010. The parties have also met and conferred concerning the page limits for the memoranda and agreed to increase the number of pages. Therefore respectfully parties respectfully request the following: 1. That the last day for filing a dispositive motion is December 2, 2010; 2. That the last day for filing an opposition is December 23, 2010; 3. That the last day for filing a reply to an opposition is January 6, 2011; 4. That the hearing date for the dispositive motions is January 20, 2011; 5. Increase the number of pages for each opening memorandum to 35 pages; 6. Increase the number of pages for each opposing memorandum to 35 pages; 7. Increase the number of pages for each reply memorandum to 20 pages; 8. Increase the number of pages for each set of objections to new evidence in reply
__________________________________________________________________________

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING AN ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HALL v. AIMCO INC., Case No. 08-CV-3447 CW Page 2

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

(Local Rule 7-3) to 10 pages; The parties respectfully make this request in order to provide adequate space to brief the issues and adequate time to file responses, given the number and complexity of the motions and the holiday time period. // // // // Jointly stipulated this 22nd day of November, 2010.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Jorge Aguilar II SUNDEEN SALINAS & PYLE

Counsel for Apartment Investment and Management Company, AIMCO Capital, Inc., All Hallows Preservation, L.P., Bayview Preservation, L.P., La Salle Preservation, L.P., and Shoreview Preservation, L.P.: /s/ _________ Jeffrey T. Johnson HOLLAND & HART, LLP Counsel for Fortney & Weygandt, Inc.: /s/ ________ Michael L. Fortney FORTNEY & KLINGSHIRN

__________________________________________________________________________

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING AN ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HALL v. AIMCO INC., Case No. 08-CV-3447 CW Page 3

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 OF THE COURT IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the briefing schedule and hearing date for dispositive motions in this matter be set as follows: 1. That the last day for filing a dispositive motion is December 2, 2010; 2. That the last day for filing an opposition is December 23, 2010; 3. That the last day for filing a reply to an opposition is January 6, 2011; 4. That the hearing date for the dispositive motions is January 20, 2011. 5. That the maximum number of pages for each opening memorandum is 30 pages; 6. That the maximum number of pages for the omnibus opposing memorandum is 60 pages; 7. That the maximum the number of pages for each reply memorandum is 20 pages; 8. That the maximum number of pages for each set of objections to new evidence in reply (Local Rule 7-3) is 10 pages; However, Defendants must collaborate so they do not repeat the same arguments and Plaintiffs must file a single brief in opposition to both. Dated: November 23, 2010 _____________________________________________ HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN

__________________________________________________________________________

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING AN ORDER FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HALL v. AIMCO INC., Case No. 08-CV-3447 CW Page 4