Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05870/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05870-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

DENNIS J. HERRERA

City Attorney 

RAFAL OFIERSKI

Deputy City Attorney

DIRECT DIAL: (415) 554-4244 

E-MAIL: rafal.ofierski@sfgov.org 

 

FOX PLAZA ·1390 MARKET STREET, FIFTH FLOOR· SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 

RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 · FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4248 

January 18, 2008 

Hon. Joseph C. Spero 

15th Floor, Courtroom A 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District 

350 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: Lelaind v. CCSF et al, 

Case No. 06-5870 MHP (JCS) 

Dear Judge Spero: 

I am a Deputy City Attorney representing the City defendants in this case. I am writing 

concerning the second mandatory settlement conference that is now scheduled for January 23. I 

believe that the Court scheduled this second session expecting that the outcome of the hearing on 

the City's motion for summary judgment, which was set for January 7, might help bring about a 

settlement. On January 2, however, Judge Patel issued an order vacating the January 7 summary 

judgment hearing. (Mem. & Order Re: Defendants' Mtn. for SJ and Pltf's Motion to Permit Late 

Filing of SJ Opposition Brief (Docket No. 77). For the reasons described in the order, Judge 

Patel granted the City additional time to file a supplemental reply brief, and also informed the 

parties that once the City files this brief, the matter would be deemed submitted without a 

hearing. The City anticipates filing the supplemental brief on January 22 or 23. 

Consequently, it seems certain that no ruling on the City's summary judgment motion 

will issue before January 23, the current date for the settlement conference. Assuming that the 

Court did not intend to hold conference before the City's motion was resolved, I respectfully 

suggest that the Court continue the conference pending a ruling on the motion. I have not spoken 

with my opposing counsel concerning this matter, but at least from the City's perspective, there is 

no meaningful chance of settling this case before the City's motion is decided one way or 

another. 

Very truly yours, 

DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

 /s/ 

RAFAL OFIERSKI 

Deputy City Attorney 

n:\labor\li2006\070589\00461364.doc 

Magistrate Spero's Chambers will contact counsel to calendar a Telephonic Scheduling Jan. 22, 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Conference to determine a new Settlement Conference date.

Case 3:06-cv-05870-MHP Document 90 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 1