Ralston .v Mortgage Investors Group, Inc., et.al.

Filing 47

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 46 Changing the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process; Case is referred to mediation. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 1/7/09. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2009)

Download PDF
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 LORI E. ANDRUS (SBN 205816) MICHA STAR LIBERTY (SBN 215687) JENNIE LEE ANDERSON (SBN 203586) ANDRUS LIBERTY & ANDERSON LLP 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-1000 Fax: (415) 896-2249 lori@libertylaw.com micha@libertylaw.com jennie@libertylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class (Additional counsel appear on signature page) ROLAND P. REYNOLDS (SBN 150864) PALMER, LOMBARDI & DONOHUE LLP 888 West 6th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 688-0430 Fax: (213) 688-0440 rreynolds@pldlawyers.com Attorneys for Defendants MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, INC., and MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, A General Partnership UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION JAY J. RALSTON, On Behalf Of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated; Plaintiff, vs. MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, INC., MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, a general partnership, and DOES 1 -10, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. CV 08-00536 JF STIPULATION TO CHANGE THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ CV08-00536 JF STIPULATION TO CHANGE THE ADR PROCESS 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 This Stipulation is entered into by and among Plaintiff JAY J. RALSTON ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, INC. and MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP ("Defendants"), as follows: 1. WHEREAS, the parties initially selected an Early Neutral Evaluation as their alternative dispute resolution process in this action; 2. WHEREAS, the Court ordered the parties to complete the Early Neutral Evaluation by August 7, 2008; 3. WHEREAS, on July 17, 2008, the Evaluator conducted an ENE teleconference call with counsel for all parties; 4. WHEREAS, at the ENE teleconference, counsel for the parties agreed that mediation of the dispute with a mutually agreed upon private mediator may the most potentially productive alternative dispute resolution in this case. 5. WHEREAS, the Court extended the deadline by which the parties must participate in mediation from October 15, 2008 to December 18, 2008 and again from December 18, 2008 to January 30, 2008, while the parties continued to meet and confer regarding the documents and information to be produced in advance of the mediation and Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's discovery; 6. WHEREAS, the parties have explored the possibility of private mediation for six months and are at an impasse regarding what information should be exchanged in advance of such mediation, who should bear the cost of such mediation, whether the parties have exhausted the ADR process, and whether private mediation is premature at this time; and 7. WHEREAS, the parties believe that a court-appointed mediator would be the most productive method of narrowing the issues and completing the ADR process at this time. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, through their respective counsel, that the parties shall participate in mediation with a court-appointed mediator pursuant to ADR L.R. 6 by January 30, 2009 and jointly request that this Court appoint a mediator accordingly. Because the parties' positions are such that resolution of the case at this early juncture 2 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ CV08-00536 JF STIPULATION TO CHANGE THE ADR PROCESS 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 is unlikely, the parties further stipulate that the parties need not attend the mediation and may be represented by their respective counsel. Dated: January 6, 2009 PALMER, LOMBARDI & DONOHUE LLP By: /s/ Roland P. Reynolds, Esq. ROLAND P. REYNOLDS, Esq. 888 West 6th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 688-0430 Fax: (213) 688-0440 rreynolds@pldlawyers.com Attorneys for Defendants MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, INC. and MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP Dated: January 6, 2009 ANDRUS LIBERTY & ANDERSON LLP By: /s/ Jennie Lee Anderson Jennie Lee Anderson 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-1000 Facsimile: (415) 896-2249 lori@libertylaw.com micha@libertylaw.com jennie@libertylaw.com David M. Arbogast, Esq. (SBN 167571) Jeffrey K. Berns (SBN 131351) ARBOGAST & BERNS LLP 19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 Tarzana, California 91356 Telephone: (818) 961-2000 Facsimile: (818) 867-4820 jberns@jeffbernslaw.com 3 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ CV08-00536 JF STIPULATION TO CHANGE THE ADR PROCESS 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 Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (SBN 119854) Patrick DeBlase, Esq. (SBN 167138) Michael C. Eyerly, Esq. (SBN 178693) KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 kiesel@kbla.com deblase@kbla.com eyerly@kbla.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 4 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ CV08-00536 JF STIPULATION TO CHANGE THE ADR PROCESS 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 ECF CERTIFICATION Pursuant to General Order No. 45, X.B., the filing attorney attests that she has obtained concurrence regarding the filing of this document from the signatories to the document. Dated: January 6, 2009 /s/ Jennie Lee Anderson Jennie Lee Anderson ANDRUS LIBERTY & ANDERSON LLP 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-1000 Facsimile: (415) 896-2249 jennie@libertylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 6, 2009, I electronically filed the above document using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: January 6, 2009 /s/ Jennie Lee Anderson Jennie Lee Anderson ANDRUS LIBERTY & ANDERSON LLP 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-1000 Facsimile: (415) 896-2249 jennie@libertylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 5 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ CV08-00536 JF STIPULATION TO CHANGE THE ADR PROCESS 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 LORI E. ANDRUS (SBN 205816) MICHA STAR LIBERTY (SBN 215687) JENNIE LEE ANDERSON (SBN 203586) ANDRUS LIBERTY & ANDERSON LLP 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-1000 Fax: (415) 896-2249 lori@libertylaw.com micha@libertylaw.com jennie@libertylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class (Additional counsel appear on signature page) ROLAND P. REYNOLDS (SBN 150864) PALMER, LOMBARDI & DONOHUE LLP 888 West 6th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 688-0430 Fax: (213) 688-0440 rreynolds@pldlawyers.com Attorneys for Defendants MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, INC., and MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, A General Partnership UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION JAY J. RALSTON, On Behalf Of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated; Plaintiff, vs. MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, INC., MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, a general partnership, and DOES 1 -10, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. CV 08-00536 JF -----------------[PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS 1 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ CV08-00536 JF [PROPOSED ] ORDER CHANGING THE ADR PROCESS 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 Pursuant to the Court's Order of December 17, 2008, the parties are to complete mediation on or before January 30, 2009. On January 6, 2009 the parties stipulated and requested an order from this Court that such mediation be conducted with a court-appointed mediator, pursuant to ADR L.R.6. The parties further stipulated that, because the parties' positions are such that complete resolution of the case at this time is unlikely, the parties may be represented by counsel and not required to personally attend the mediation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. the parties shall complete mediation by January 30, 2008 with a mediator appointed by this Court pursuant to ADR L.R. 6; and 2. the parties may be represented by counsel at the mediation and shall not be required to personally attend. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1/7 Dated: _____________ 2009 By: The Honorable Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge 2 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ CV08-00536 JF [PROPOSED ] ORDER CHANGING THE ADR PROCESS 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 6, 2009, I electronically filed the above document using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: January 6, 2009 /s/ Jennie Lee Anderson Jennie Lee Anderson ANDRUS LIBERTY & ANDERSON LLP 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-1000 Facsimile: (415) 896-2249 jennie@libertylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class 3 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ CV08-00536 JF [PROPOSED ] ORDER CHANGING THE ADR PROCESS

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?