Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02961/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02961-9/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

Gregory M. Fox, State Bar No. 070876 

BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT 

The Waterfront Building 

2749 Hyde Street 

San Francisco, California 94109 

Telephone: (415) 353-0999 

Facsimile: (415) 353-0990 

Randolph W. Hall, State Bar No. 080142 

Chief Asst. City Attorney 

Office of the City Attorney 

One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor 

Oakland CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 238-3601 

Facsimile: (510) 238-6500 

Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND 

and POLICE CHIEF RICHARD WORD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SRI LOUISE COLES, et al. 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal entity, et al. 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

File No. C -03-2961 TEH (JL) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

SETTING BRIEF PAGE LIMITS FOR 

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY RE: MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS RE: 

OPD’S CROWD CONTROL POLICY

1

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Page Limit for Reply Brief for Coles Plaintiffs’ Motion For Attorneys Fees / Case No. C-03-2961 TEH (JL)

Case 3:03-cv-02961-TEH Document 102 Filed 08/26/05 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

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 

The parties, plaintiffs in the Sri Louise Coles action, No. C -03-2961 TEH (JL) and defendant 

City of Oakland, acting by and through their respective legal counsel, stipulate to the following page 

limitations for the reply memorandum of points and authorities in connection with plaintiffs’ Motion 

For Attorneys’ Fees and Costs related to work on the OPD crowd control policy, (hereinafter, 

motion): 

1) Since the Coles plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed within the 25 page limit, and since 

Defendants’ response was 35 pages long, the Coles reply brief may be up to 25 pages. 

So Stipulated: 

Dated: August 25, 2005 HADDAD & SHERWIN 

 By:____________/s/_________________ 

 Michael Haddad

 Attorney for Plaintiffs

 SRI LOUISE COLES, et al.

Dated: August 25, 2005 BERTRAND, FOX, & ELLIOT 

 By: _____________________________ 

 Gregory M. Fox 

 Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al. 

I hereby attest that I have received defense counsel Gregory Fox’s written permission in an email to file this stipulation, he has signed it and his assistant will fax his signature to me by August 

26, 2005, and his written statement that I will have his holograph signature on file no later than 

August 26, 2005. Dated: August 25, 2005. 

 /s/ 

 MICHAEL J. HADDAD 

2

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Page Limit for Reply Brief for Coles Plaintiffs’ Motion For Attorneys Fees / Case No. C-03-2961 TEH (JL)

Case 3:03-cv-02961-TEH Document 102 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 3
3

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Page Limit for Reply Brief for Coles Plaintiffs’ Motion For Attorneys Fees / Case No. C-03-2961 TEH (JL) 

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

ORDER

 Good cause appearing, the stipulation is so ordered. The Coles plaintiffs’ reply brief may be 

up to 20 pages. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________________________ 

 The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson 

 U.S. District Court Judge 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

08/26/05

Case 3:03-cv-02961-TEH Document 102 Filed 08/26/05 Page 3 of 3