Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02273/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02273-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

Parties’ Joint Request to Defer ADR

C 07-2273 SBA 1

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (South Carolina Bar No. 9990)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (California Bar No. 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

LETITIA R. KIM (California Bar No. 200142)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7181

Facsimile: (415) 436-6748

Email: letitia.r.kim@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

MICHAEL L. OKSNER, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

MARION C. BLAKEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 

Case No. C 07-2273 SBA

PARTIES’ JOINT REQUEST TO DEFER

FORMAL ADR PROCESS

Each of the undersigned certifies that he or she has read either the handbook entitled “Dispute

Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California,” or the specified portions of the ADR

Unit’s Internet site <www.adr.cand.uscourts.gov>, discussed the available dispute resolution

options provided by the court and private entities, and considered whether this case might benefit

from any of them. Here, the parties agree that referral to a formal ADR process at this time will

not be beneficial because Defendants’ motion to dismiss is pending and is currently scheduled to

be heard on October 2, 2007. The parties request to defer formal ADR process until after the

Court has ruled on the pending motion to dismiss. If the motion to dismiss is granted in full, the

case will be dismissed and there will be no need for ADR. If the motion is denied, the parties will

confer about ADR at that point. Accordingly, pursuant to ADR L.R. 3-3(c), the parties request the

case be removed from the ADR Multi-Option Program at this time, and that they be excused from

participating in the ADR phone conference and any further formal ADR process until after the

Case 4:07-cv-02273-SBA Document 14 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 1 of 2 Case 4:07-cv-02273-SBA Document 17 Filed 08/28/07 Page 1 of 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

Parties’ Joint Request to Defer ADR

C 07-2273 SBA 2

Court rules on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Dated: August 16, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

 /s/ 

LETITIA R. KIM

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: August 16, 2007 ________/s/________________

ANTHONY P.X. BOTHWELL

Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation and to ADR L. R. 3-3(c), the parties are hereby removed from the ADR

Multi-Option Program and are excused from participating in the ADR phone conference and any

further formal ADR process until after the Court rules on Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________________________

HON. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02273-SBA Document 14 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 2 of 2

8/27/07

Case 4:07-cv-02273-SBA Document 17 Filed 08/28/07 Page 2 of 2