Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01767/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01767-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DEADLINE 

1

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

Jeremy S. Golden (SBN 228007) 

LAW OFFICES OF ERIC F. FAGAN 

2300 Boswell Road, Suite 211 

Chula Vista, CA 91914 

efagan@efaganlaw.com 

Phone: 619-656-6656; Fax: 775-898-5471 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JASON E. DAVIS, 

 Plaintiff 

v. 

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, a 

corporation; STEVEN A. BOOSKA., 

an individual; and DOES 1 through 10 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Civil Case No.: C-07-1767-SI 

 

 STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

MODIFY SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE DEADLINE 

 

 The Honorable Susan Ilston 

 )

 The Parties submit this stipulation and proposed order to modify the settlement 

conference deadline for the following reasons: 

 1) On September 24, 2007, the parties participated in a mediation but were unable 

to settle the case. 

 2) On September 28, 2007, this court held a Further Case Management Conference 

and ordered the parties to conduct a settlement conference with the magistrate judge before 

January 18, 2008; the parties scheduled the conference for January 15, 2008. 

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 72 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 1 of 3 Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 73 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DEADLINE 

2

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

 3) The parties each filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was originally 

scheduled to be heard on December 7, 2007; but was continued until January 18, 2008. 

 4) The parties believe that a settlement conference will be most productive if it 

occurs after a decision on the Motions for Summary Judgment. 

 5) The parties request that this court continue the settlement conference deadline 

until twenty-one days after a decision on the Motions for Summary Judgment. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

 Dated: 12/20/07 

 _____Jeremy S. Golden _______________________ 

 Jeremy S. Golden, 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 Dated: 12/20/07 

 ______Tomio B. Narita________________________ 

 Tomio B. Narita, 

 Attorney for Defendant Unifund CCR Partners 

 Dated: 12/20/07 

 ______Mark E. Ellis________________________ 

 Mark E. Ellis, 

 Attorney for Defendant Steven A. Booska 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 72 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 2 of 3 Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 73 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE DEADLINE 

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 Good cause having been shown it is hereby ordered that the parties have until twentyone days after the Motions for Summary Judgment have been decided to participate in a 

settlement conference. 

IT IS ORDERED. 

DATE: ________________ BY: __________________________________ 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 72 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 3 of 3 Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 73 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 3