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

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

---

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 1 C06-06872 (CRB)

HEARING DATE; [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

25255:410140

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 CONTINUE 

HEARING DATE; [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 set by this Court for hearing of 

defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be continued from August 10 to September 14, 

AMENDED

Case 3:06-cv-06872-CRB Document 28 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 2 C06-06872 (CRB)

HEARING DATE; [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

2007.

Good cause exists for this extension as the parties and their attorneys have been 

diligently moving the case forward but despite best efforts, were not able to complete the Early 

Neutral Evaluation (ENE) until June 4, 2007. The parties have continued to cooperate with 

discovery efforts and defendants have produced hundreds of documents to plaintiff. Defendants 

hope to take plaintiff’s deposition before filing moving papers. The additional time will allow 

them to file their motion in time to have a hearing of the matter on September 14, 2007.

Dated: June 29, 2007 MOSLEY & GEARINGER

STEPHEN F. HENRY, ESQ.

By: /s/ Stephen Henry

Stephen F. Henry

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: June 29, 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 good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby 

ordered that the hearing date for Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is continued to 

September 14, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

CHARLES R. BREYER

U.S. Northern District Court Judge

July 2, 2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

21

Case 3:06-cv-06872-CRB Document 28 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 2