Kihagi v. City of San Francisco
Filing
26
ORDER re 22 Stipulation to Continue Hearing Dates Re: 1. City's Motion to Stay; 2) Initial Case Management Conference. Responses due by 8/13/2015. Replies due by 8/20/2015. Motion Hearing continued to 9/17/2015 at 11:00 AM. Case Management Conference continued to 10/20/2015 at 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 07/17/2015. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2015)
1 Julie N. Nong (SBN 208013)
2 NT Law
2600 W. Olive Ave., 5th Fl., #647
3 Burbank, CA 91505
4 Tel: (888) 588-0428
Fax: (888) 588-0427
5 Email: julienong@ntlawgroup.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Anna Kihagi, Xelan Prop 1, LLC,
7 Renka Prop, LLC, and Zoriall LLC
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
10
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
) CASE No. 15-cv-01168 KAW
)
)
)
)
)
) STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
Plaintiffs,
) HEARING DATES RE:
vs.
)
1. City’s Motion to Stay
)
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
2. Initial Case Management
)
CALIFORNIA, a California public
Conference
facilities corporation; VICTORIA L.
)
WEATHERFORD, a natural person;
)
MICHAEL WEISS, a natural person,
) Complaint filed: March 12, 2015
TONY PELEA, a natural person;
MARICIO HERNANDDEA, a natural ) Trial Date: None
person and DOES 1-30, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
ANNA KIHAGI, an individual,
12 XELAN PROP 1, LLC, a California
limited liability company, RENKA
13 PROP, LLC, a California limited
liability company, and ZORIALL
14 LLC, a California limited liability
company,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE PARTIES BY AND THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
25 HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
26
27
WHEREAS on May 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint in
1
28
STIPULATION
1
2
3
4
5
this matter in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California;
WHEREAS on June 30, 2015, the City filed a motion to stay proceeding with
a hearing date of August 6, 2015; responses and replies due on July 14, 2015 and
July 21, 2015, respectively;
WHEREAS an initial case management conference is currently set for August
6 11, 2015;
7
WHEREAS counsel for the plaintiffs will be out of the country and therefore
8 not available from July 27, 2015 to August 10, 2015;
9
WHEREAS in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency,
10
NOW THEREFORE the parties stipulate as follows:
11
1.
The hearing on the City’s motion to stay proceeding set for August 6,
12 2015 shall be continued to September 3, 2015 at 11:00 a.m., responses shall be due
13 on August 13, 2015; and replies shall be due on August 20, 2015.
14
15
16
17
18
19
2.
Pending the motion to stay, the parties request that the initial case
management conference be continued from August 11, 2015 to September 22, 2015.
The parties agree to stay discovery and all other activities in this matter pending the
resolution of the motion to stay.
SO STIPULATED.
Dated: July 8, 2015
NT Law
/s/Julie Nong
20
21
22
By:
JULIE N. NONG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
23
24
25
26
27
2
28
STIPULATION
1 Dated: July 8, 2015
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
CHERYL ADAMS
Chief Trial Deputy
MARGARET W. BAUMGARTNER
Deputy City Attorney
2
3
4
/s/ Margaret Baumgartner
5
By:_______________________
MARGARET W. BAUMGARTNER
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO
6
7
8
9
ORDER ON STIPULATION
10
11
12
13
Based on the foregoing Stipulation by and between Plaintiffs and Defendant,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
The hearing on the City’s motion to stay proceeding set for August 6,
14 2015 shall be continued to September 17, 2015 at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 4, 3 rd Fl.,
September 3, 2015
15 Oakland; responses shall be due on August 13, 2015; and replies shall be due on
16 August 20, 2015.
17
2.
The initial case management conference shall be continued from
rd
October 20, 2015
18 August 11, 2015 to September 22, 2015 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 4, 3 Fl.,
19 Oakland.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
Dated: July 8, 2015
07/17/15
_____________________________
Kandis A. Westmore
United States Magistrate Judge
23
United States District Court Judge
24
25
26
27
3
28
STIPULATION
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?