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)

Download PDF
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?