ASM Capital, LP et al v. Okun et al

Filing 12

STIPULATION AND ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS (PRIVATE ADR) re 11 Stipulation and Proposed Order selecting Private ADR filed by ASM Capital, LP, Case referred to Private ADR. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/22/11. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2011)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Clear Form

ASM CAPITAL, LP, et al.

CASE NO. C 11-4825 PJH
Plaintiff(s),
v.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

EDWARD H. OKUN, et al.,

Defendant(s).
_______________________________/
Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the
following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5:
The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process:
Court Processes:
9
Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4)
9
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
9
Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
(Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is
appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR, must participate in an
ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for
ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5)
Private Process:
9
Private ADR (please identify process and provider) ______________________
SEE ATTACHMENT

_____________________________________________________________________________
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
9
the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order
referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered. )
9

other requested deadline _____________________________________________

12/21/11
Dated:___________

/s/ Robert L. Brace
____________________________
Attorney for Plaintiff

12/21/11
Dated:____________

/s/ Debra Sturmer
____________________________
Attorney for Defendant

When filing this document in ECF, please be sure to use the appropriate ADR Docket
Event, e.g., "Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting Early Neutral Evaluation."
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the captioned matter is hereby referred to:
9
Non-binding Arbitration
9
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE)
9
Mediation
9
Private ADR
Deadline for ADR session
x
9
90 days from the date of this order.
9
other ___________________

S

ERED

IT

RT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT
amilton
yllis J. H
h
Judge P

FO

NO

R NIA

RD
___________________________________
IS SO O

A

H

ER

LI

UNIT
ED

12/22/11
Dated:________________

RT
U
O

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

JUDGE

ATTACHMENT

The ASM litigation was filed following the Court's denial of Class Certification in Hunter, et al.
v. Citibank, et al., USDC Case No. C 09-2079-JW. The ASM plaintiffs were all members of the
putative class in Hunter v. Citibank, who are now pursuing their individual aiding and abetting
claims against Silicon Valley Law Group ("SVLG"). Two private mediations were conducted in
the Hunter v. Citibank matter, at which the interests of the ASM plaintiffs were represented by
the putative class representatives and Hollister & Brace as counsel for the putative class and
SVLG was represented by Lerch Sturmer LLP. The most recent mediation was held in July,
2011 before George Fisher, Esq., who was appointed by Judge Ware. The first mediation was
held in September 2010 before retired Justice Edward Panelli, who was selected by the parties.
As a result of these two mediations and the ongoing dialogue between counsel for the ASM
plaintiffs and SVLG, the parties jointly believe that further mediation will not be fruitful.