Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06345/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06345-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2003 Job Discrimination

---

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

-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Eugene T. Franklin [SBN: 124881]

Barbara F. Green [SBN: 150320]

Franklin Employment Law Group

Attorneys at Law

22762 Main Street

Hayward, California 94541

(510) 538-0969

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Kirk Cooper 

ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

CATHLEEN A. WADHAMS [SBN 100434]

1600 Franklin Street, 6 Floor th

Oakland, California 94612

(510) 891-4827

Attorneys for Defendant

AC Transit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Kirk M. Cooper, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Alameda Contra Costa County Transit

District and Does 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-06345 MHP 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER MODIFYING JOINT CASE

MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND

PROPOSED ORDER 

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about April 12, 2007, the Court referred the Parties to Early Neutral Evaluation

(“ENE”)and assigned Ms. Greta Schnetzler as the ENE Evaluator. The parties have conducted two

ENE sessions and have essentially agreed upon a settlement of disability retirement for plaintiff. 

The settlement must be approved by defendant AC Transit’s Retirement Board. The board’s

approval would entail allowing plaintiff to be reinstated to employee status for a 5-day window for

the sole purpose of allowing him to apply for disability retirement as a “current employee.” Because

plaintiff will be reinstated for a brief period, the parties need to coordinate the dates of reinstatement

* AS AMENDED BY COURT

Case 3:06-cv-06345-MHP Document 26 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

and application submission closely, so that plaintiff’s application is properly submitted and dated

during the reinstatement period. The parties have encountered difficulties in coordinating these

dates. Defendant’s Retirement Board typically meets once a month. Plaintiff is awaiting receipt of

his medical report from his treating physician in order to submit his disability retirement application

to the board. Plaintiff’s counsel hasrequested his medical report on several occasions, and it should

be received in time for submission to the Retirement Board at the February 2008 meeting. 

Counsel for the parties have been and are currently attempting to complete the administrative

requirements to finalize the settlement. The parties expect to complete the required administrative

action to finalize the settlement by March 1, 2008. The parties request that the current schedule set

forth in the Joint Case Management Statement be modified as follows:

1. Disclose all witnesses by April 30, 2008; 

2. Complete discovery by May 30, 2008; 

3. Complete Expert Discovery by June 30, 2008; 

4. Final pretrial conference July 30, 2008; 

5. Trial date September 16, 2008.

6. File Joint Pretrial conference statement and proposed pretrial order by June 30, 2008

7. File objections under Civ. L.R. 16(8)(b)(11) by July 15, 2008.

8. Deadline to hear motions directed to the merits of all or part of the case: 

 April 15, 2008.

9. Next case management/status conference: August 31, 2008.

THE PARTIES RESPECTFULLY request that the court approve the above modifications. 

Dated: January 7, 2008 FRANKLIN EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP

 

 /s/

 By: _________________________________

 Eugene T. Franklin

 Attorney For Plaintiff 

Dated: January 7, 2008 ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTS TRANSIT DISTRICT

 /s/

 By: 

CATHLEEN A. WADHAMS 

 Attorney for Defendant 

AT 2:30 P.M. AT 8:30 A.M. APRIL 14, 2008 AT 2:00 P.M.

Case 3:06-cv-06345-MHP Document 26 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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

-3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 

 ORDER

 Good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED that the Parties Stipulation to modify the Joint

Case Management Conference Statement and Proposed Order is APPROVED. 

Dated: ___________________

 _______________________________

 MARILYN HALL PATEL

 U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

January 10, 2008

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:06-cv-06345-MHP Document 26 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 3