Bates v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 50

STIPULATION AND ORDER 47 Continuing Hearing Date and Setting Briefing Schedule on Plaintiff's Rue 60 Motion for Relief From Judgment. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 43 MOTION Notice of Motion; Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(d)(3) re 36 Costs Taxed. Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Ronald M. Whyte. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 3/18/13. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7. RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (88625) NORA FRIMANN, Assistant City Attorney (93249) SHANNON SMYTH-MENDOZA, Senior Deputy City Attorney (188509) RICHARD D. NORTH, Deputy City Attorney (225617) Office of the City Attorney 6th 200 East Santa Clara Street, 1 Floor San Jose, California 95113-1905 Telephone Number: (408) 535-1900 Facsimile Number: (408) 998-3131 E-Mail Address: cao.main@sanjoseca.gov Attorneys for CITY OF SAN JOSE, ROBERT DAVIS, and ADONNA AMOROSO 8 9 UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN JOSE DIVISION 12 13 14 15 FREDERICK BATES, Case Number: C06-05302 RMW Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 16 17 18 19 CITY OF SAN JOSE, ROBERT DAVIS, CITY OF SAN JOSE CHIEF OF POLICE, ADONNA AMOROSO, CITY OF SAN JOSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, Date: Time: Room: Judge: Defendants. 20 March 29, 2013 9:00 am Courtroom 6- 4th Floor Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 21 22 23 STIPULATION Plaintiff FREDERICK BATES’ ("Plaintiff~’) Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant 24 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 ("Motion") is currently scheduled to be heard on 25 March 29, 2013 at 9:00 am. The parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request a 26 continuation of the hearing date to April 26,2013. The parties further herein agree to an 27 accordant schedule for filing and service of the opposition and reply briefs. 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT C06-05302 RMW 953819 1 Whereas, Plaintiff served the Motion by U.S. Mail on February 20, 2013; 2 Whereas, Plaintiff filed the motion on February 21,2013; 3 Whereas, Plaintiff selected the March 29, 2013 hearing date on the Motion without 4 consulting with counsel for defendants. CITY OF SAN JOSE, ROBERT DAVIS and 5 ADONNA AMOROSO (collectively "Defendants"), as Plaintiff acknowledges in his January 6 19, 2013 statement filed with the Motion ("... if the hearing date I have selected is not 7 suitable for the City, my schedule is flexible for almost any other date as long as I’m given 8 adequate notice"); Whereas, Richard D. North, counsel for Defendants, was out of the office from 9 10 February 19, 2013 through February 28, 2013, and returned to find the Motion; Whereas, Defendants’ opposition to the Motion is currently due to be served and 11 12 filed on March 6,2013; Whereas, the Motion is based upon an extensive factual and procedural record 13 14 spanning nine years, with which counsel for Defendants is currently unfamiliar, 15 necessitating additional time for Defendants to formulate a response to the Motion; Whereas, the parties have met and conferred and agreed to continue the hearing 16 17 date on the Motion to April 26, 2013; Whereas, the parties have met and conferred and agreed that Defendants’ 18 19 opposition to the Motion shall be filed and served on or before April 2, 2013 and Plaintiff’s 20 reply shall be filed and served on or before April 9, 2013: 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT C06-05302 RMW 953819 Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the hearing date on the Motion be 1 2 continued to April 26, 2013 at 9:00 am, with the opposition to be filed on or before April 2, 3 2013 and the reply to be filed and served on or before April 9, 2013. It is so stipulated. 4 5 6 Dated: March 5, 2013 7 RICHARD DOYLE City Attorney By: /s/Richard D. North RICHARD D. NORTH Deputy City Attorney 8 9 Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF SAN JOSE, ROBERT DAVIS, and ADONNA AMOROSO 10 11 12 Dated: March 5, 2013 FREDERICK BATES, Pro Se 13 By: /s/ Frederick Bates Frederick Bates 14 Plaintiff 15 16 ORDER 17 Having read and considered the parties’ stipulation, and finding good cause for the 18 19 relief requested therein, the Court orders the following: 1. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment ("Motion"), filed 2O 21 February 21, 2013, is continued from March 29, 2013 to April 26, 2013 at 9:00 am; 2. Defendants’ opposition to the Motion shall be served and filed on or before April 22 23 2, 2013 and Plaintiff’s reply shall be served and filed on or before April 9, 2013. 24 25 Dated: 26 -Hon. Ronald M. Whyte, Senior District Judge, N.D. Cal. 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 60 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT C06-05302 RMW 953819

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?