Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02961/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02961-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing Hearing Date and Setting Briefing Schedule for Coles Plaintiffs’ Motion For Attorneys Fees / Case 

No. C-03-2961 TEH (JL) 

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

Gregory M. Fox, State Bar No. 070876 

BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT

The Waterfront Building 

2749 Hyde Street 

San Francisco, California 94109 

Telephone: (415) 353-0999 

Facsimile: (415) 353-0990 

Randolph W. Hall, State Bar No. 080142 

Chief Asst. City Attorney 

Office of the City Attorney 

One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor 

Oakland CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 238-3601 

Facsimile: (510) 238-6500 

Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF OAKLAND 

and POLICE CHIEF RICHARD WORD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SRI LOUISE COLES, et al. 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs.

CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal entity, et al. 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

File No. C -03-2961 TEH (JL) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

SETTING BRIEF PAGE LIMITS FOR 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS RE: 

OPD’S CROWD CONTROL POLICY

Case 3:03-cv-02961-TEH Document 83 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 3
2

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing Hearing Date and Setting Briefing Schedule for Coles Plaintiffs’ Motion For Attorneys Fees / Case 

No. C-03-2961 TEH (JL) 

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

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 

The parties, plaintiffs in the Sri Louise Coles action, No. C -03-2961 TEH (JL) and defendant 

City of Oakland, acting by and through their respective legal counsel, stipulate to the following page 

limitations for the opposition and reply memorandum of points and authorities in connection with 

plaintiffs’ Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and Costs related to work on the OPD crowd control policy, 

(hereinafter, motion): 

 1) Defendant City of Oakland’s brief on opposition to the motion may be up to 35 pages. 

 2) The Coles plaintiffs’ reply brief may be up to 20 pages. 

So Stipulated: 

Dated: June ___, 2005 HADDAD & SHERWIN 

 By:________/s/_____________________ 

 Michael Haddad 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

 SRI LOUISE COLES, et al. 

Dated: June ___, 2005 BERTRAND, FOX, & ELLIOT 

 By: _______/s/_____________________ 

 Gregory M. Fox 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al. 

Case 3:03-cv-02961-TEH Document 83 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 3
3

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing Hearing Date and Setting Briefing Schedule for Coles Plaintiffs’ Motion For Attorneys Fees / Case 

No. C-03-2961 TEH (JL) 

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

ORDER

 Good cause appearing, the stipulation is so ordered. Defendants City of Oakland’s opposition 

brief to the Coles motion may be up to 35 pages. The Coles plaintiffs reply brief may be up to 20 

pages.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________ 

 The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson 

 U.S. District Court Judge 

June 30, 2005 /s/

Case 3:03-cv-02961-TEH Document 83 Filed 06/30/05 Page 3 of 3