Johnson-v-CFS II, Inc

Filing 24

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 20 Stipulation selecting Mediation.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2012)

Download PDF
Case5:12-cv-01091-LHK Document20 Filed07/17/12 Page1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRUCE ALBERT JOHNSON, Case No. 5:12-CV-01091-LHK-PSG Plaintiff, v. CFS II, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS Defendant. 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: Court Processes: Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4) Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5) Mediation (ADR L.R. 6) (Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is appreciably more likely to meet their needs that any other form of ADR, must participate in an ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5.) Private Process: Private ADR (please identify process and provider) The parties agree to hold the ADR session by: the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered.) other requested deadline Dated: July 16, 2012 /s/ Fred W. Schwinn Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: July 16, 2012 /s/ Robert C. Chandler Attorney for Defendant Case5:12-cv-01091-LHK Document20 Filed07/17/12 Page2 of 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the captioned matter is hereby referred to: Non-binding Arbitration Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) Mediation Private ADR Deadline for ADR session 90 days from the date of this order. other IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 19, 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?