Ngo v. Woodford et al

Filing 35

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER CONTINUING CMC (approving docket no. 34 ). Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 10/14/08. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2008)

Download PDF
1 PETER H. KANG (No. 158101) KEVIN P. BURKE (No. 241972) 2 CONNIE TSAI (No. 250264) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 3 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 772-1200 Facsimile: (415) 772-7400 5 Email: pkang@sidley.com kburke@sidley.com ctsai@sidley.com 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Viet Mike Ngo 8 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 9 DAVID S. CHANEY Chief Assistant Attorney General 10 FRANCES T. GRUNDER Senior Assistant Attorney General 11 MICHAEL W. JORGENSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General 12 JAY C. RUSSELL, State Bar No. 122626 Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 13 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5717 14 Fax: (415) 703-5843 Email: Jay.Russell@doj.ca.gov 15 **E-Filed 10/15/08** TIMOTHY P. MURPHY (No. 120920) EDRINGTON, SHIRMER & MURPHY The Terraces 2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 450 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Telephone: (925) 827-3300 Facsimile: (925) 827-3340 Email: TMurphy@esmlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Wooten 16 Attorneys for Defendants Woodford, Nienhuis, Bracy, McGarvey, and Knudsen 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joint Case Mgmt. Conf. Statement IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION VIET NGO, Plaintiff, v. J. S. WOODFORD, et al., Defendants. Case No. C 03-2210 JF JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND ----------------- CASE [PROPOSED] MANAGEMENT ORDER CONTINUING CMC Hearing: October 17, 2008 Time: 10:30 a.m. Courtroom: 3, 5th Floor Judge: The Honorable Jeremy Fogel Ngo v. Woodford, et al. C 03-2210 JF 1 1 2 The parties jointly submit this Case Management Statement and Proposed Order: Following a settlement conference held before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte on 3 September 17, 2008, the parties reached an agreement to fully settle this litigation. A letter of 4 understanding confirming the proposed settlement was signed by all counsel, and counsel for 5 Defendants Woodford, Nienhuis, Bracy, McGarvey, and Knudsen is drafting a formal Settlement 6 and Release Agreement. The parties believe that this Agreement will be signed and executed, 7 and a Request for Dismissal filed by Plaintiff, within the next 60 days. 8 To that end, the parties request that the Court continue the Case Management Conference 9 for 60 days to allow for execution of and compliance with the proposed Settlement and Release 10 Agreement. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joint Case Mgmt. Conf. Statement Ngo v. Woodford, et al. C 03-2210 JF Dated: October 8, 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DAVID S. CHANEY Chief Assistant Attorney General FRANCES T. GRUNDER Senior Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL W. JORGENSON Supervising Deputy Attorney General /s/ Jay C. Russell JAY C. RUSSELL Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Woodford, Nienhuis, Bracy, McGarvey, and Knudsen SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP /s/ Kevin P. Burke CONNIE TSAI, ATTORNEY AT LAW KEVIN P. BURKE, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff Mike Viet Ngo 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 40275137.wpd EDRINGTON, SHIRMER & MURPHY /s/ Timothy P. Murphy TIMOTHY P. MURPHY, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant Wooten CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Based upon the parties' Joint Case Management Conference Statement, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Case Management Conference is continued to December 19, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. 14 Dated: October _____, 2008. ____________________________________ HON. JEREMY FOGEL U.S. District Court Judge 24 SF2003400073 25 26 27 28 Joint Case Mgmt. Conf. Statement Ngo v. Woodford, et al. C 03-2210 JF 3

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?