Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03907/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03907-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAO XI TAN and YUE MEI TAN

individually and as successors-in-interest to

JERRY TAN, deceased,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et. al.,

Defendants /

No. C-03-3907 MMC

ORDER CONTINUING DEADLINE FOR

CERTIFICATION

On April 13, 2005, after having been notified that the parties had agreed to a

settlement, the Court dismissed the above-titled action without prejudice, but ordered that if

any party certified to the Court, within ninety days, that the agreed consideration for the

settlement had not been delivered over, the dismissal would be vacated and the case

would be restored to the calendar to be set for trial. The Court thereafter continued that

deadline to September 7, 2005.

On September 7, 2005, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a certification, advising the Court that

the San Francisco Board of Supervisors had approved the settlement on September 6,

2005, and that payment of the settlement would take place later in September, provided it

is approved by the Mayor. Plaintiffs request that the Court continue the deadline by which
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

2

either party may certify that the agreed consideration has not been paid.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the date by which either party may certify that

the agreed consideration for the settlement has not been delivered is hereby CONTINUED

to October 28, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge