Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04045/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04045-20/pdf.json

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

---

Smith., et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No. C05-04045 EMC 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to File Motion for Appellate Fees

1

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

JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN 69888)

BENJAMIN NISENBAUM (SBN 222173)

ADANTE DE POINTER (SBN 236229)

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

Airport Corporate Centre

7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120

Oakland, California 94621

Telephone: (510) 839-5200

Facsimile: (510) 839-3882

Email: John.Burris@johnburrislaw.com

JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN 76043)

JULIE M. HOUK (SBN 114968)

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. CHANIN

3050 Shattuck Avenue

Berkeley, California 94705

Telephone: (510) 848-4752, Ext. 2

Facsimile: (510) 848-5819

Email: jbcofc@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TORRY SMITH, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF OAKLAND; et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C05-04045 EMC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR 

PLAINTIFFS TO FILE MOTION FOR AN 

AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES ON 

APPEAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-04045-EMC Document 166 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3
Smith., et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No. C05-04045 EMC 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to File Motion for Appellate Fees

2

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

THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD 

DO HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

Whereas, the parties are continuing to meet and confer in good faith with respect to the 

issues concerning the attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiffs on appeal; 

Whereas, counsel for Defendants has requested additional time to respond to Plaintiffs’ 

demand for attorneys’ fees on appeal; and,

Whereas, the parties have previously stipulated to the transfer of the determination of 

Plaintiffs’ fees on appeal to the District Court and for an extension of time of sixty days to file a 

motion for the appellate fees in the Ninth Circuit;

THE PARTIES DO HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE THAT Plaintiffs shall have 

up to an including September 14, 2010 to file a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees on appeal 

in the District Court. This stipulation is not intended to alter the stipulation previously reached 

between the parties concerning the time for the filing of Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of the 

attorneys fees incurred in the District Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: July 13, 2010 _____/S/____________________________

Julie M. Houk

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: July 16, 2010 ____/S/_____________________________

Terence J. Cassidy

Attorney for Defendants

Case 3:05-cv-04045-EMC Document 166 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3
Smith., et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No. C05-04045 EMC 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Extending Time to File Motion for Appellate Fees

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES,

AND FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN,

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: ____________, 2010 _______________________________

Edward M. Chen

Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:05-cv-04045-EMC Document 166 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3