Norse v. City of Santa Cruz et al

Filing 208

STIPULATION AND ORDER 207 to Extend Deadline for Filing Motion for New Trial and for Filing Opposition to the Motion. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 3/21/13. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

DAVID J. BEAUVAIS (CA Bar # 84275)
1440 Broadway, Suite 802
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
KATHLEEN WELLS (CA Bar # 107051)
3993 Maplethorpe Lane
Soquel, California 95073
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ROBERT NORSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ROBERT NORSE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
______________________________________)

No. C 02-01479 RMW
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND
DEADLINE FOR FILING MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL AND FOR FILING
OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN David J. Beauvais, attorney for plaintiff, and
George Kovacevich, attorney for defendants, that the time for filing a motion for new trial be
extended and that opposition to such motion be extended as follows: The motion for a new trial shall
be filed on or before April 10, 2013. The opposition to said motion shall be filed on or before May
10, 2013. The hearing on said motion shall be calendared no less than three weeks following
defendants opposition papers, at the convenience of the court.
This stipulation is made with reference to the following facts:

25

1. The court entered judgment on February 21, 2013. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is due
26

on March 21, 2013.
27
28

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR FILING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, ETC.

1

2. Both counsel for the plaintiff represent the plaintiffs in an action entitled Golin v. Allenby,

2

San Mateo County Superior Court docket No. 517053. The Golin case has been designated complex

3

under the California Rules of Court. It involves ten sets of defendants, most of whom have filed

4

motions scheduled to be heard on April 8 and April 12. The due date for plaintiffs’ submissions is

5

March 22. Filing oppositions to the defendants’ motions has taken a great deal of time and plaintiffs’

6

counsel are unable to file the motion for a new trial by the March 21 deadline.

7
8

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel will be able to file the new trial motion no later than April 10 and
request leave of court to extend the time in the interests of justice.

9

4. Defense counsel expects to be in trial at the time opposition would be due under the

10

proposed schedule. Accordingly, the parties agree that opposition to the motion for new trial be filed

11

on or before May 10, 2013.

12

5. The parties further agree that the motion be scheduled for hearing no earlier than three

13

weeks following the filing of defendants’ opposition and that a reply, if any, be filed one week after

14

the filing of the opposition papers.

15

DATED: March 18, 2013

16

/s/ David J. Beauvais
DAVID J. BEAUVAIS
Attorney for Plaintiff

17
18
19
20

DATED: March 18, 2013
/s/ George Kovacevich
GEORGE KOVACEVICH
Attorney for Defendants

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR FILING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, ETC.

-2-

ORDER

1
2

The Court having considered the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefor:

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff is granted an extension of time to April 10, 2013

4

to file a motion for new trial. Opposition to the motion shall be filed no later than May 10, 2013. A

5

reply, if any, shall be filed within seven days of the filing of the opposition and a hearing date shall

6

be set no earlier than two weeks following the filing of the reply.

7

DATED:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE