Robertson v. Qadri

Filing 332

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 330 Enlarging Time for Filing of Plaintiff's Brief. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 9/3/08. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WADE ROBERTSON, P.O. Box 20185 Stanford, CA. 94309 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: **none** Pro-Se Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION WADE ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. SHIRAZ QADRI, AVENIR RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. GREG ST. CLAIRE Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: C 06-04624 JF -----------------STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR FILING OF PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF [Civ l L R. 6 1 6 2 and 7 12 ] i . -, -, -. Honorable Jeremy Fogel

WHEREAS, on August 8, 2008, the Court, Honorable Judge Fogel presiding, heard argument (the "Hearing") on Plaintiff's pending motion for reconsideration and also on the Opposition and Request for Judicial Notice filed by the Defendants on July 18, 2008. WHEREAS, at the Hearing, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file a Reply brief not later than September 5, 2008. WHEREAS, the September 5, 2008 deadline for Plaintiff's Reply brief was set to be due after a decision had been reached on a motion for a new trial or dismissal in the separate, related criminal matter-- "People v. Robertson", Superior Court of California, Palo Alto, CA, case # BB 620394. ("related state criminal matter")

Stipulation & [Proposed] Order Enlarging Time for Filing of Plaintiff's Reply Br. Case No.:C 06-04624 JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHEREAS, at the Hearing all parties brought to the Court's attention the possibility that the proceedings in the related state criminal matter might be continued. WHEREAS, at the Hearing the Court indicated that it wanted the benefit of first knowing what decision the Superior Court in the related state criminal matter had reached on the conviction and pending motion for a new trial or dismissal prior to its deciding on the matters pending in this action. The Court also indicated that Plaintiff's Reply brief address the legal issues highlighted at the Hearing as per that same pending decision by the Superior Court. WHEREAS, at the Hearing the Court indicated that, consequently, it would extend the time for Plaintiff to file his Reply brief in the event that the Superior Court continued the proceedings (and it's decision on) the conviction and pending motion for a new trial or dismissal in the related state criminal matter. WHEREAS, on August 25, 2008, the Superior Court in the related state criminal matter continued-- by motion of the District Attorney's Office of Santa Clara County, CA.-- it's hearing on the motion pending there for a new trial or dismissal until September 22, 2008. No date was set for sentencing. WHEREAS, all the parties agree that because the Superior Court in deciding on the motion for a new trial or dismissal in the related state criminal matter will be considering over-sized briefs and the entire trial record with all transcripts there is a reasonable likelihood that the Superior Court will take the matter under submission for at least a couple of weeks post the oral argument and hearing on September 22, 2008. Therefore, all parties expect that no decision will issue from the Superior Court prior to October 6, 2008. WHEREAS, Plaintiff Wade Robertson maintains that subsequent to this pending decision by the Superior Court, he will need at least one calendar week to reasonably complete his Reply brief so as to include the outcome in the Superior Court. Assuming that the Superior Court's decision issues on October 6, 2008, this would imply a due date of October 13, 2008 for Plaintiff's Reply brief. WHEREAS, all the parties agree that there have been no prior time modifications regarding the deadline for Plaintiff's Reply brief and that any extensions of time
-2Stipulation & [Proposed] Order Enlarging Time for Filing of Plaintiff's Reply Br. Case No.:C 06-04624 JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

will not affect the schedule for this case. WHEREAS, all the parties agree that an enlargement of the deadline for Plaintiff's filing of his Reply brief to October 13, 2008 is reasonable and appropriate for all of the reasons stated above.

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12 all the parties, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The deadline for the filing of Plaintiff's Reply brief-- as set by the court at the August 8, 2008 Hearing-- shall be enlarged from September 5, 2008 until October 13, 2008.

Dated: August 27, 2008

PLAINTIFF, Pro-Se ____________________________________ WADE ROBERTSON

Dated: August ______, 2008

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By: ____________________________________ SHANNON K. WHITE. Attorney for Defendants SHIRAZ QADRI, AVENIR RESTAURANT GROUP,INC. and GREG ST. CLAIRE ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- --------------ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 9/3 Dated: __________________, 2008

_______________________________ Honorable Jeremy Fogel United States District Court

-3Stipulation & [Proposed] Order Enlarging Time for Filing of Plaintiff's Reply Br. Case No.:C 06-04624 JF