Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05254/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05254-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE 

ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Powell v. Tessada, C04-05254 JF Page 1

KATHRYN BURKETT DICKSON, Bar # 070636

DICKSON - ROSS, LLP

1970 Broadway, Suite 1045

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 268-1999

(510) 268-3627

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

FLOYD POWELL, ERROL CROOKS,

and JIMMY RANDLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD POWELL, ERROL CROOKS, 

and JIMMY RANDLE

Plaintiffs,

v.

TESSADA & ASSOCIATES, INC.;

SCIENTIFIC AND COMMERCIAL

SYSTEMS CORPORATION; and

DOES I through XX

Defendants. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C04-05254 JF

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

DATE ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel

Crtrm: Courtroom 3, Fifth Floor

For the reasons set forth below, the parties stipulate and request that the Court continue the

hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment from the original hearing date of March 24,

2006 until May 5, 2006. 

1. Plaintiffs are requesting the continuance because their counsel, Kathryn Burkett

Dickson and Jeffrey Ross of Dickson - Ross LLP, have been involved in a jury trial in San Mateo

County Superior Court continuously since the last week of January, 2006. The trial will not

conclude until the week of February 27 - March 3 at the earliest.

2. Plaintiffs received Defendants’ motion for summary judgment while in trial in San 

Mateo County and have been unable to begin preparing the response. Unless there is a continuance

of the hearing date on the summary judgment motion in this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel will have either

no time or virtually no time to prepare Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion, which is currently due on

**E-filed 3/2/06**

Case 5:04-cv-05254-JF Document 40 Filed 03/02/06 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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE 

ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Powell v. Tessada, C04-05254 JF Page 2

March 3, 2006. Plaintiffs would be prejudiced if their counsel did not have reasonable or adequate

time to prepare the opposition papers.

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s firm, Dickson - Ross, has just two lawyers, Ms. Dickson and Mr.

Ross, both of whom have been fully engaged in the current jury trial in San Mateo Superior Court.

4. The parties have been informed by Court staff that the next available hearing date on

the Court’s calendar is May 5, 2006.

5. Based on the above, Defendants’ counsel have agreed to continue the hearing on their

motion for summary judgment to May 5, 2006.

6. No prior continuances of the hearing date have been requested.

7. Based on the foregoing, the parties hereby stipulate to continue the hearing date on

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to May 5, 2006.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DICKSON - ROSS LLP

/s/ electronically

Dated: February 27, 2006 By: _____________________________

KATHRYN BURKETT DICKSON

Attorneys for Plaintiffs FLOYD POWELL, 

ERROL CROOKS, and JIMMY RANDLE

KRUCHKO & FRIES

See attached Notice of 

Concurrence

Dated: February ___, 2006 By: ________________________________

PAUL M. LUSKY

Attorneys for Defendants TESSADA & ASSOCIATES,

INC. and SCIENTIFIC AND COMMERCIAL

SYSTEMS CORPORATION

ORDER

Case 5:04-cv-05254-JF Document 40 Filed 03/02/06 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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE 

ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Powell v. Tessada, C04-05254 JF Page 3

The parties have so stipulated, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

currently scheduled for March 24, 2006, is continued to May 5, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________________ ______________________________________

THE HONORABLE JEREMY FOGEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3/2/06

Case 5:04-cv-05254-JF Document 40 Filed 03/02/06 Page 3 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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE 

ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Powell v. Tessada, C04-05254 JF Page 4

NOTICE OF CONCURRENCE IN ELECTRONIC FILING

In accordance with General Order No. 45, Section X.B., I attest that concurrence in the

electronic filing of this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT was

obtained from Paul M. Lusky.

DICKSON - ROSS LLP

/s/ electronically

Dated: February 28, 2006 By: _____________________________

KATHRYN BURKETT DICKSON

Attorneys for Plaintiffs FLOYD POWELL, 

ERROL CROOKS, and JIMMY RANDLE

Case 5:04-cv-05254-JF Document 40 Filed 03/02/06 Page 4 of 4