Dixon v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 38

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 37 . Settlement Conference set for 12/17/2013 09:30 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 8/21/13. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MICHAEL J. HADDAD (State Bar No. 189114) JULIA SHERWIN (State Bar No. 189268) GINA ALTOMARE (State Bar No. 273099) GENEVIEVE K. GUERTIN (State Bar No. 262479) HADDAD & SHERWIN 505 Seventeenth Street Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (510) 452-5500 Fax: (510) 452-5510 Attorneys for Plaintiff PETER DIXON 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER DIXON individually, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 vs. CITY OF OAKLAND and the OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, public entities, SERGEANT BERNARD ORTIZ, OFFICER STEVEN TORIBIO, OFFICER PATRICK GERRANS, OFFICER ROBERT GERRANS, OFFICER R. GARCIA, PERSONAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, DEMONT MARROW, STANLEY TEETS, MEREDITH WILSON, RENE GARCIA, LADALE SLOCUM and DOES 5 through 10, individually, jointly and severally, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C12-5207 DMR ___________ STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 ALL PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, HEREBY STIPULATE, AND REQUEST THIS COURT TO ORDER, THAT the settlement conference _________ Case No. C12-5207 DMR - STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 1 1 currently scheduled before Magistrate Judge Cousins for September 12, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. be 2 rescheduled to December 17, 2013. The reason for this requested continuance is that, in the 3 parties’ estimation, the case is not in a settlement posture due to discovery that remains to be 4 completed. 5 6 Plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to depose the individual defendants in this matter. These depositions are currently scheduled to occur during early to mid-September. Additionally, 7 8 9 10 Defendants have not yet deposed Plaintiff. The parties anticipate these depositions will be completed by December 2013 and that they will then be in a position to evaluate this case for settlement. 11 12 SO STIPULATED: 13 14 DATED: August 20, 2013 HADDAD & SHERWIN 15 /s/ Michael J. Haddad* 16 MICHAEL J. HADDAD Attorneys for Plaintiff PETER DIXON 17 18 19 DATED: August 20, 2013 20 21 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OF OAKLAND /s/ Arlene M. Rosen*________________ ARLENE M. ROSEN, Senior Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND, BERNARD ORTIZ, STEVEN TORIBIO, PATRICK GERRANS, ROBERT GERRANS and R. GARCIA 22 23 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 28 _________ Case No. C12-5207 DMR - STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 2 1 2 3 4 5 DATED: August 20, 2013 BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O’MEARA LLP /s/ Lance Pedersen*_____________________ LANCE PEDERSEN Attorneys for Defendants PERSONAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC., DEMONT MARROW, STANLEY TEETS, LADALE SLOCUM, MEREDITH WILSON and RENE GARCIA 6 7 8 *Mr. Haddad, Ms. Rosen and Mr. Pedersen provided their consent that this document be electronically filed. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________ Case No. C12-5207 DMR - STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 3 ___________ (PROPOSED) ORDER 1 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The settlement conference 3 scheduled for September 12, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. is rescheduled for December 17, 2013 at 4 ________________. 9:30 a.m. 5 12 S R NIA FO Cousins LI ER H 11 HONORABLE NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge RT 10 . thanael M Judge Na TED A 9 UNIT ED 8 Dated: _______________ August 21, 2103 GRAN NO 7 RT U O 6 S DISTRICT TE C TA N F D IS T IC T O R C 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. C12-5207 DMR - STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 4

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?