Fanucchi v. Donahoe

Filing 39

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 38 Stipulation filed by Patrick R. Donahoe, Joseph J. Fanucchi. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 12/14/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2011)

Download PDF
1 MARY DRYOVAGE Law Offices of Mary Dryovage 2 3 4 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 593-0095 Fax: (415) 399-8792 Email: mdryovage@igc.org 5 6 7 8 9 10 WENDY MUSELL Stewart & Musell 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 593-0083 Fax: (415) 520-0920 Email: wmusell@stewartandmusell.com Attorneys for Plaintiff JOSEPH J. FANUCCHI, M.D. 11 12 13 14 MELINDA HAAG (CSBN 132612) United States Attorney JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143) Chief, Civil Division NEILL T. TSENG (CSBN 220348) Assistant United States Attorney 15 16 17 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102-3495 Telephone: (415) 436-7155 FAX: (415) 436-6927 neill.tseng@usdoj.gov 18 19 Attorneys for Defendant PATRICK R. DONAHOE 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 22 OAKLAND DIVISION 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) PATRICK R. DONAHOE, U.S. Postmaster ) ) General, ) ) Defendant. ) JOSEPH J. FANUCCHI, M.D., No. C 11-0737 SBA STIPULATION TO EXTEND MEDIATION DEADLINE; ORDER STIPULATION TO EXTEND MEDIATION DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER C 11-0737 SBA 1 Subject to the approval of the Court, and after consultation with the Court’s ADR Unit, 2 the parties, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to extend the mediation 3 deadline to 90 days after defendant files an answer, if any. The current deadline is 120 days 4 from the date of the Stipulation and Order Selecting ADR Process, which was dated September 5 29, 2011, and filed October 3, 2011. 6 The parties believe good cause exists for this request as follows. Defendant’s motion to 7 dismiss (Doc. #9) has been fully briefed and is awaiting decision. The parties understand from 8 the ADR Unit that it may be easier to assign a mediator once a decision has been issued and any 9 answer has been filed. Additionally, defendant believes mediation would be more productive 10 after its motion to dismiss has been ruled on and any answer has been filed. Although plaintiff is 11 willing to mediate the case at any time, plaintiff does not object to extending the mediation 12 deadline as requested herein. 13 This is the first request to extend the mediation deadline. This Court previously granted 14 defendant’s administrative motion to continue the date of the initial CMC (see Doc. #16) and 15 plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (see Doc. #25). There is no 16 trial date and there are currently no other case management dates aside from the mediation 17 deadline. 18 19 20 DATED: December 13, 2011 By: /s/ MARY DRYOVAGE Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: December 13, 2011 By: /s/ WENDY MUSELL Attorney for Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 25 MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney 26 27 DATED: December 13, 2011 28 By: /s/ NEILL T. TSENG STIPULATION TO EXTEND MEDIATION DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 C 11-0737 SBA 1 Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant 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 STIPULATION TO EXTEND MEDIATION DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 3 C 11-0737 SBA 1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: 2 3 4 DATED:12/14/11 5 6 _______________________________________ HONORABLE SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO EXTEND MEDIATION DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 4 C 11-0737 SBA

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?