Jami Tillotson v. City of San Francisco et al
Filing
31
AMENDED ORDER (As Modified) by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 25 Stipulation to Continue Further Case Management Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 3/25/16. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney
CHERYL ADAMS, State Bar #164194
Chief Trial Deputy
MARGARET W. BAUMGARTNER, State Bar #151762
MARK D. LIPTON, State Bar #152864
Deputy City Attorneys
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone:
(415) 554-3859 [Baumgartner]
Telephone:
(415) 554-4218 [Lipton]
Facsimile:
(415) 554-3837
E-Mail:
margaret.baumgartner@sfgov.org
E-Mail:
mark.lipton@sfgov.org
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMI TILLOTSON, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO; a municipal
corporation; GARY BUCKNER, sergeant for
the SAN FRANCISCO Police Department;
DOUGLAS FARMER, sergeant for the SAN
FRANCISCO Police Department, BRIAN
STANSBURY, sergeant for the SAN
FRANCISCO Police Department; PATRICK
WOODS, officer for the SAN FRANCISCO
Police Department; MATTHEW ENG; officer
for the SAN FRANCISCO Police Department;
BRIAN KNEUKER, officer for the SAN
FRANCISCO Police Department; and DOES 1
to 25, inclusive, joint and severally, in their
individual, capacities and their capacities as
police officers for the SAN FRANCISCO
Police Department,
Case No. 15-cv-04014-DMR
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONTINUING MARCH 30, 2016 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [DKT. NO.
17] (AS MODIFIED)
Hearing Date:
Time:
Place:
March 30, 2016
1:30 p.m.
Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor
1301 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Trial Date:
March 6, 2017
Defendants.
27
28
Stipulation to Continue 3/30/15 CMC
Case No. 15-cv-04014-DMR
1
n:\lit\li2016\150779\01091609.doc
1
STIPULATION
2
Whereas, the Court’s Civil Conference Minute Order, dated December 2, 2015, set a further
3
case management conference for March 30, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. [Dkt. No. 17]
4
Whereas, the parties, through counsel, have stipulated to continue the settlement conference,
5
currently set for April 1, 2016.
6
Whereas, a case management conference will be more meaningful if it is conducted after a
7
settlement conference.
8
Therefore, the parties, through counsel, hereby stipulate to continuing the case management
9
conference to a date after the continued settlement conference.
10
11
12
Dated: March 22, 2016
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
CHERYL ADAMS
Chief Trial Deputy
MARGARET W. BAUMGARTNER
MARK D. LIPTON
Deputy City Attorneys
13
14
15
16
By:
17
/s/ Mark D. Lipton
MARK D. LIPTON
18
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
19
20
21
Dated: March 22, 2016
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
22
By:
23
24
/s/ DeWitt M. Lacy
DEWITT M. LACY
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
25
26
27
28
Stipulation to Continue 3/30/15 CMC
Case No. 15-cv-04014-DMR
2
n:\lit\li2016\150779\01091609.doc
[PROPOSED] ORDER (AS MODIFIED)
1
5
3/25/2016
Dated: _________________
RT
U
O
8
NO
9
RDERE
IS SO O FIED
IT
DI
AS MO
onna
Judge D
RT
10
11
H
ER
M. Ryu
12
FO
7
R NIA
THE HONORABLE DONNA M. RYU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
D
UNIT
ED
6
S DISTRICT
TE
C
___________________________________________
TA
LI
4
1:30
July 6
1:30 p.m. [Dkt. No.17] is continued to ___________, 2016, at ________ p.m. The parties shall submit
an updated joint case management conference statement by no later than June 29, 2016. Plaintiff's motion
IT IS SO ORDERED.
to appear by telephone [24] is denied as moot.
A
3
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, the case management conference set for March 30, 2016 at
S
2
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
Stipulation to Continue 3/30/15 CMC
Case No. 15-cv-04014-DMR
3
n:\lit\li2016\150779\01091609.doc
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?