Smolinski v. City of Pacific Grove et al

Filing 59

ORDER continuing pretrial conference to October 29, 2009 and continuing trial to November 16, 2009. Signed by Judge Whyte on 9/16/09. (rmwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES--No. C-08-1809 RMW TER E-FILED on 9/16/09 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION DARREN SMOLINSKI, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, et al, Defendants. No. C-08-1809 RMW ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES The court is unavailable to commence trial on October 5, as presently scheduled, and has under submission defendants' pending motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the pretrial conference presently scheduled for September 17, 2009 is continued to October 29, 2009 at 2:00 p.m., and the trial is continued from October 5, 2009 to November 16, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. DATED: 9/16/09 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Stephen Joseph Usoz Leslie Holmes Counsel for Defendants: Howard Benjamin Golds Cynthia Marie Germano Eugene Tanaka howard.golds@bbklaw.com cynthia.germano@bbklaw.com monica.brozowski@bbklaw.com SUsoz@Hoganlaw.com lholmes@hoganlaw.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 9/16/09 TER Chambers of Judge Whyte ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES--No. C-08-1809 RMW TER 2

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?