Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06872/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06872-1/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION TO EXTEND ADR 1 C06-06872 (CRB) 

DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

MARK L. MOSLEY, SBN 136449 

BRIAN GEARINGER, SBN 146125 

STEPHEN F. HENRY, SBN 142336 

MOSLEY & GEARINGER LLP 

825 Van Ness Avenue, Fourth Floor 

San Francisco, California 94109-7837 

Telephone: (415) 440-3102 

Facsimile: (415) 440-3103 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

JOHN A. RUSSO, City Attorney, SB #129729 RANDOLPH W. HALL, Chief Asst. City Attorney, SB #080142

RACHEL WAGNER, Supervising Trial Attorney, SB #127246

INÉS VARGAS FRAENKEL, Deputy City Attorney, SB #108113

One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: (510) 238-6512 

Facsimile: (510) 238-6500 

Email: ivfraenkel@oaklandcityattorney.org 

25255:404893 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

CITY OF OAKLAND, TUCKER and POWELL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ELIZABETH CLARK, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

THE CITY OF OAKLAND, a California 

public entity, CHIEF WAYNE G. TUCKER, 

in his individual and official capacities, 

OFFICER MITCH POWELL, in his individual

and official capacities and DOES ONE 

through FIFTY, inclusive, 

) 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: C06-06872 (CRB) 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND ADR 

DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

 

It is hereby STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their respective attorneys 

of record and pending Order of this Court, that the date by which Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) process may be completed in this case, be extended through June 4, 2007. 

Case 3:06-cv-06872-CRB Document 24 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND ADR 2 C06-06872 (CRB) 

DEADLINE; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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

Good cause exists for this extension as despite best efforts, the parties, their attorneys 

and the assigned Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) evaluator Larry Currey, have been unable to 

schedule a session by May 1, 2007, the deadline set by the Court it its Order of January 31, 

2007 (Document No. 11). At this time, the date of June 1, 2007 has been agreed to by all 

parties and the Evaluator for the ENE session, and it is expected that the session will be 

completed that day. 

Dated: May 7, 2007 MOSLEY & GEARINGER 

 STEPHEN F. HENRY, ESQ. 

 By: /s/ Stephen Henry 

 Stephen F. Henry 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Dated: May 7, 2007 OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

 By: /s/ Inés Vargas Fraenkel____________

 Inés Vargas Fraenkel 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties and agreement of the ENE Evaluator, and good 

cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ordered that the ADR deadline in this case is extended 

through June 4, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 CHARLES R. BREYER 

U.S. Northern District Court Judge 

May 9, 2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:06-cv-06872-CRB Document 24 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 2