Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506-59/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 

 

SFI-560900v1

1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: 

PAGE LIMIT FOR DEFS.’ REPLY 

C-99-2506-SI

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (# 060359) 

ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com 

Caroline N. Mitchell (# 143124) 

cnmitchell@jonesday.com 

JONES DAY 

555 California Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 626-3939 

Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 

Attorneys for Defendants 

BARBARA ENLOE HADSELL., ESQ. (# 086021) 

bhadsell@hadsellstormer.com 

LAUREN TEUKOLSKY, ESQ. (# 211381) 

lauren@hadsellstormer.com 

LAW OFFICE OF HADSELL & STORMER, INC. 

128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 

Pasadena, California 91103-3664 

Telephone: (626) 585-9600 

Facsimile: (626) 585-9600 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LARRY BOWOTO, et. al. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. C-99-2506-SI 

PARTIES’ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER ON PAGE LIMIT FOR 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 

CLAIMS 10-17

 

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1550 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1553 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 3
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 

SFI-560900v1

2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: 

PAGE LIMIT FOR DEFS.’ REPLY 

C-99-2506-SI

 WHEREAS, the Court’s Order (Dkt. 1349) permitted 35 pages for Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment on Claims 10-17 (Dkt. 1353) and 35 pages for Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 1452), but did not set a page limit for Defendants’ Reply in 

Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims 10-17; and 

 WHEREAS, plaintiffs have agreed to defendants’ request for 20 pages for its Reply in 

Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims 10-17 due on February 15, 2007; 

 THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE THAT: 

1. Defendants may have 20 pages for their Reply in Support of Motion for Summary 

Judgment on Claims 10-17 due on February 15, 2007. 

DATED: February 7, 2007 JONES DAY 

By: ___/s/ Caroline N. Mitchell________ 

Caroline N. Mitchell 

Attorneys for Defendants 

DATED: February 7, 2007 LAW OFFICE OF HADSELL & STORMER, INC. 

By: /s/ Lauren Teukolsky 

Lauren Teukolsky 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February ___, 2007 

 

The Hon. Susan Illston 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1550 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1553 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1550 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 3 of 3
 Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1553 Filed 02/08/07 Page 3 of 3