Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ames v. City of Novato, 3:16-cv-02590-JST. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20161026b52 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF ADR PROCESS JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Plaintiffs Jeffrey Ames and Sasha D'Amico ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants City of Novato and Lt. Oliver Collins (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows for consideration and approval by the Court: A. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint for Damages on May 16, 2016 and served Defendants
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF ADR PROCESS

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Ames and Sasha D'Amico ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants City of Novato and Lt. Oliver Collins (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows for consideration and approval by the Court:

A. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint for Damages on May 16, 2016 and served Defendants on May 20, 2016; B. WHEREAS, on May 31, 2016, the parties agreed and stipulated to extending Defendants' time to respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint from June 10, 2016 to July 6, 2016; C. WHEREAS, on July 6, 2016, Defendants City of Novato and Lt. Oliver Collins filed a Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint; D. WHEREAS, on July 6, 2016, the Court scheduled a Case Management Conference for September 14, 2016. E. WHEREAS, on July 14, 2016, Defendants City of Novato and Lt. Oliver Collins filed a Motion to Sever Plaintiff D'Amico's Claims into a Separate Action; F. WHEREAS, on July 19, 2016, the parties agreed and stipulated, and this Court approved, that the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Motion to Sever Plaintiff D'Amico's Claims into Separate Action be continued to September 1, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. and to extend briefing dates.; G. WHEREAS, Fulvio Cajina associated in as co-counsel for Plaintiffs on August 10, 2016; H. WHEREAS, on August 31, 2016, the parties agreed and stipulated, and this Court approved, to continue the case management conference, the deadline for filing the ADR stipulation/notice for phone conference, and related dates; I. WHEREAS, on September 14, 2016, the parties agreed and stipulated to Mediation as their preferred ADR process; J. WHEREAS, on September 19, 2016, this Court approved, and ordered, completion of Mediation within 90 days of the order, or by December 19, 2016; K. WHEREAS, the parties appeared before the Court at the October 19, 2016, case management conference, and represented to the court that they have agreed to use a private mediator who is not available until March 2017. This Court approved the parties' filing of this stipulation to extend the mediation deadline.

NOW THEREFORE, the Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate, by and through their counsel and pursuant to Court approval, that:

1. The continued deadline to complete ADR (mediation) in this matter is on or before March 31, 2017.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1. The parties have agreed to private mediation, and shall to hold the ADR session on or before March 31, 2017.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer