Hickcox-Huffman v. US Airways, Inc.
Filing
54
Stipulation and Order re: Selecting ADR Process signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 9/8/2017. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2017)
E-filed 9/8/2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Hayley Hickcox-Huffman et al.
CASE No C 10-cv-05193-HRL
Plaintiff(s)
v.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS
U.S. Airways, Inc.
Defendant(s)
Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following
stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5. The parties agree to participate in the
following ADR process:
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
■
Private ADR (specify process and provider)
The parties have discussed selecting a mediator
from JAMS, ADR Services or similar (and
mediating in Los Angeles or Century City).
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
Note: Magistrate judges do not conduct
mediations under ADR L.R. 6. To request an
early settlement conference with a Magistrate
Judge, you must file a Notice of Need for
ADR Phone Conference. Do not use this
form. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR
L.R. 3-5.
the presumptive deadline (90 days from the date of the order referring the case to ADR,
unless otherwise ordered. )
■
other requested deadline: 150 days to allow for discovery
Date: September 5, 2017
Date: September 5, 2017
X
/s/ Robert A. Curtis
Attorney for Plaintiff
/s/ Michael McGuinness
Attorney for Defendant
IT IS SO ORDERED
IT IS SO ORDERED WITH MODIFICATIONS:
Date: 9/8/2017
U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Howard R. Lloyd
Important! E-file this form in ECF using the appropriate event among these choices: “Stipulation & Proposed
Order Selecting Mediation” or “Stipulation & Proposed Order Selecting ENE” or “Stipulation & Proposed
Order Selecting Private ADR.”
Form ADR-Stip rev. 1-2017
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?