Jones et al v. City of Oakland et al
Filing
44
ORDER RE: SECOND CONTINUANCE OF COMPLIANCE HEARING FOR FILING OF AMENDED PETITION FOR MINOR'S COMPROMISE. The 10/11/2013 Compliance Hearing is CONTINUED TO Friday, October 25, 2013 at 9:01 AM.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/10/13. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2013)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
7
8
9
NELLIE JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
Case No.: 11-CV-3470-YGR
ORDER RE: SECOND CONTINUANCE OF
COMPLIANCE HEARING FOR FILING OF
AMENDED PETITION FOR MINOR’S
COMPROMISE
Defendants.
10
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal the Second
11
Amended Petition to Appoint GAL and Compromise Minor’s Claim. (Dkt. No. 42.) While Plaintiffs
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
have addressed some of the Court’s concerns as detailed in the Court’s Order of September 25, 2013,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
the Petition is still missing a breakdown of the costs and expenses represented by the $8,000 figure
cited in the Petition.
The compliance hearing currently set for Friday, October 11, 2013, is CONTINUED to October
25, 2013, on the Court’s 9:01 a.m. calendar, in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
California, Courtroom 5.
Five (5) business days prior to the date of the continued compliance hearing, Plaintiffs shall
20
file a supplemental declaration detailing the actual costs incurred and providing evidence of any
21
agreement regarding division of those costs between Plaintiffs. If compliance is satisfactory,
22
Plaintiffs need not appear and the compliance hearing will be taken off calendar. Telephonic
23
appearances may be allowed if the parties have submitted a written statement in a timely fashion.
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 10, 2013
____________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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?