Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04624/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04624-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 

Stipulation & [Proposed] Order Enlarging Time for Filing of Plaintiff's Reply Br. Case No.:C 06-04624 JF

WADE ROBERTSON,

P.O. Box 20185

Stanford, CA. 94309

Telephone: (866)-845-6003

Facsimile: **none**

Pro-Se Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WHEREAS, on August 8, 2008, the Court, Honorable Judge Fogel

presiding, heard argument (the "Hearing") on Plaintiff's pending motion for reconsideration and

also on the Opposition and Request for Judicial Notice filed by the Defendants on July 18, 2008.

WHEREAS, at the Hearing, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file a Reply

brief not later than September 5, 2008.

WHEREAS, the September 5, 2008 deadline for Plaintiff's Reply brief

was set to be due after a decision had been reached on a motion for a new trial or dismissal in the

separate, related criminal matter-- "People v. Robertson", Superior Court of California, Palo

Alto, CA, case # BB 620394. ("related state criminal matter")

WADE ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHIRAZ QADRI,

AVENIR RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.

GREG ST. CLAIRE

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C 06-04624 JF

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER ENLARGING TIME FOR

FILING OF PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF

[Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12.]

Honorable Jeremy Fogel

------------------

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 332 Filed 09/04/08 Page 1 of 4
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

- -

Stipulation & [Proposed] Order Enlarging Time for Filing of Plaintiff's Reply Br. Case No.:C 06-04624 JF

2

WHEREAS, at the Hearing all parties brought to the Court's attention the

possibility that the proceedings in the related state criminal matter might be continued.

WHEREAS, at the Hearing the Court indicated that it wanted the benefit

of first knowing what decision the Superior Court in the related state criminal matter had reached

on the conviction and pending motion for a new trial or dismissal prior to its deciding on the

matters pending in this action. The Court also indicated that Plaintiff's Reply brief address the

legal issues highlighted at the Hearing as per that same pending decision by the Superior Court.

 WHEREAS, at the Hearing the Court indicated that, consequently, it

would extend the time for Plaintiff to file his Reply brief in the event that the Superior Court

continued the proceedings (and it's decision on) the conviction and pending motion for a new

trial or dismissal in the related state criminal matter.

WHEREAS, on August 25, 2008, the Superior Court in the related state

criminal matter continued-- by motion of the District Attorney's Office of Santa Clara County,

CA.-- it's hearing on the motion pending there for a new trial or dismissal until September 22,

2008. No date was set for sentencing.

WHEREAS, all the parties agree that because the Superior Court in

deciding on the motion for a new trial or dismissal in the related state criminal matter will be

considering over-sized briefs and the entire trial record with all transcripts there is a reasonable

likelihood that the Superior Court will take the matter under submission for at least a couple of

weeks post the oral argument and hearing on September 22, 2008. Therefore, all parties expect

that no decision will issue from the Superior Court prior to October 6, 2008.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Wade Robertson maintains that subsequent to this

pending decision by the Superior Court, he will need at least one calendar week to reasonably

complete his Reply brief so as to include the outcome in the Superior Court. Assuming that the

Superior Court's decision issues on October 6, 2008, this would imply a due date of October 13,

2008 for Plaintiff's Reply brief.

WHEREAS, all the parties agree that there have been no prior time

modifications regarding the deadline for Plaintiff's Reply brief and that any extensions of time

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 332 Filed 09/04/08 Page 2 of 4
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

- -

Stipulation & [Proposed] Order Enlarging Time for Filing of Plaintiff's Reply Br. Case No.:C 06-04624 JF

3

will not affect the schedule for this case.

WHEREAS, all the parties agree that an enlargement of the deadline for

Plaintiff's filing of his Reply brief to October 13, 2008 is reasonable and appropriate for all of

the reasons stated above.

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12 all

the parties, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The deadline for the filing of Plaintiff's Reply brief-- as set by the court at the August

8, 2008 Hearing-- shall be enlarged from September 5, 2008 until October 13, 2008.

Dated: August 27, 2008 PLAINTIFF, Pro-Se

 ____________________________________

 WADE ROBERTSON

Dated: August ______, 2008 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By: ____________________________________

 SHANNON K. WHITE.

 Attorney for Defendants

SHIRAZ QADRI, AVENIR RESTAURANT

GROUP,INC. and GREG ST. CLAIRE

----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ---------------

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________________, 2008 _______________________________

Honorable Jeremy Fogel

United States District Court

9/3

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 332 Filed 09/04/08 Page 3 of 4
Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 332 Filed 09/04/08 Page 4 of 4