Fuller v. Evans et al

Filing 116

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Denying 115 Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference and Reassign Case for Settlement. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DURIE TANGRI LLP LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713) lmiller@durietangri.com ZACHARY G. F. ABRAHAMSON (SBN 310951) zabrahamson@durietangri.com 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-362-6666 Facsimile: 415-236-6300 Attorneys for Plaintiff BRUCE L. FULLER 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 BRUCE L. FULLER, 12 13 14 15 16 Case No. 4:14-cv-00304-HSG Plaintiff, v. J. EVANS and S. REXFORD, Defendants. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND REASSIGN CASE FOR SETTLEMENT Date: Time: Ctrm: Judge: April 18, 2018 10:00 a.m. G Honorable Robert M. Illman 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND REASSIGN CASE FOR SETTLEMENT / CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00304-HSG 1 STIPULATION 2 3 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(b) and 6-2, Plaintiff Bruce L. Fuller and Defendants S. Rexford and J. Evans, by and through their court of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 4 5 WHEREAS, the Court on November 7, 2017 referred this case to Magistrate Judge Illman for settlement. 6 7 WHEREAS, the Court on November 30, 2017 entered a stipulation and scheduling order. See ECF No. 109. 8 9 WHEREAS, the scheduling order set May 31, 2018 as the last date for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Illman. 10 11 WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Illman in January 2018 scheduled an in-person settlement conference in San Francisco for April 18, 2018. See ECF No. 112. 12 13 WHEREAS, Defendants have been unable to depose Plaintiff in this matter due to an upcoming criminal trial involving Plaintiff in Kern County Superior Court. 14 15 WHEREAS, the parties jointly seek to complete Plaintiff’s deposition before holding the settlement conference in this case. 16 17 WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Illman’s next available date for an in-person settlement conference in San Francisco is June 22, 2018. 18 19 WHEREAS, the parties mutually seek to hold an in-person settlement conference in San Francisco before May 31, 2018, in accordance with the Court’s scheduling order. 20 THEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court refer this case for settlement to a 21 magistrate judge available to hold an in-person settlement conference in San Francisco in May 2018. If 22 possible, the parties jointly request reassignment for settlement to Magistrate Judge Corley, Magistrate 23 Judge Cousins, or Magistrate Judge Laporte. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND REASSIGN CASE FOR SETTLEMENT / CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00304-HSG 1 2 IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: April 6, 2018 3 DURIE TANGRI LLP By: 4 5 /s/ Zachary G. F. Abrahamson ZACHARY G. F. ABRAHAMSON Attorney for Plaintiff BRUCE L. FULLER 6 7 8 Dated: April 6, 2018 9 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA By: /s/ Martine N. D’Agostino MARTINE N. D’AGOSTINO 10 Attorney for Defendants S. REXFORD and J. EVANS 11 12 13 14 15 16 FILER’S ATTESTATION Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), regarding signatures, I, Zachary G.F. Abrahamson, attest that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. Dated: April 6, 2018 /s/ Zachary G. F. Abrahamson ZACHARY G. F. ABRAHAMSON 17 18 d S. G H a y wo o e illiam J r. FO Dated: 4/9/2018 D RT Judg HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ER 26 A H 25 LI Judge ______________ for settlement proceedings. R NIA PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The instant case is REFERRED to 23 24 UNIT ED 22 DENIE NO 21 S 20 RT U O S DISTRICT TE C [PROPOSED] ORDER TA 19 N D IS T IC T R OF C 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND REASSIGN CASE FOR SETTLEMENT / CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00304-HSG

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?