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)

Download PDF
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.

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?