Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01683/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01683-3/pdf.json

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

---

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 FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE (No. C04-1683 JW) - 1

MARC P. FAIRMAN (No. 047758)

LAW OFFICES OF MARC P. FAIRMAN

Professional Corporation

Two Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Phone: (415) 732-1704

Fax: (415) 232-1705

Email: mfairman@pacbell.net

Attorney for Plaintiff

JORGE ALBERT SANCHEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE ALBERT SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal

corporation, GILBERT (“GIL”) VIZZUSI, an

Individual; and DOES 1-20.

Defendants.

Case No.: C-04-1683 JW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND

REVISING PRETRIAL AND TRIAL

SETTING SCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2 and 7, counsel for the parties have agreed, subject

to order of the Court, to continue the hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment for

fourteen (14) days from April 10, 2006 to April 24, 2006 and extend the Preliminary Pretrial and

Trial Setting Conference and other dates in the September 29, 2005 Scheduling Order by a

corresponding period, as shown in the following table:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:04-cv-01683-JW Document 47 Filed 03/23/06 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

STIPULATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE (No. C04-1683 JW) - 2

ACTIVITY/EVENT PREVIOUS DATE REVISED DATE

Summary Judgment Hearing April 10, 2006 April 24, 2006

Lodging of Preliminary Pretrial and Trial

Setting Statement and Proposed Order April 7, 2006 April 21, 2006

Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting

Conference April 17, 2006 May 1, 2006

Close of Expert Discovery 30 days before trial 30 days before trial

No previous continuance of the Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference has been

requested.

The proposed two-week continuance of the hearing on the summary judgment motion is

necessary to accommodate plaintiff’s counsel’s request for a two-week extension of the date that

plaintiff’s opposition is due and adhere to the schedule prescribed by Local Rule 7-2. The

corresponding continuance of the Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference) (“PTC”)

preserves the current sequence and interval between the summary judgment hearing and the PTC.

The reasons and basis for the requested changes are set forth in the following declaration.

DECLARATION

I, Marc P. Fairman, being first duly sworn, declare as follows:

1. I am counsel of record for plaintiff George Sanchez and submit this declaration in

support of the stipulation for 14-day continuance of the hearing on defendants’ motion for

summary judgment and preliminary pretrial and trial setting conference.

2. The September 29, 2005 Scheduling Order set the PTC for April 17, 2006 and

February 27, 2006 as the last day for hearing case-dispositive motions. The deadline for the

hearing of case-dispositive motions was changed to April 10, 2006 by prior stipulation and order.

3. Defendants filed their summary judgment motion on March 6, 2006 and noticed

the hearing for April 10, 2006, the 35-days minimum notice prescribed in Local Rule 7-2.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, plaintiff’s opposition would have to be filed no later than March 20,

giving him only 14-days to prepare a response to a motion consisting of a thirty-five page brief,

two declarations and multiple exhibits. Because of unforeseen scheduling conflicts and demands

Case 5:04-cv-01683-JW Document 47 Filed 03/23/06 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

STIPULATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE (No. C04-1683 JW) - 3

in other cases, including two full days of jury service, the preparation and filing of a cert petition

in the United States Supreme Court, an evidentiary hearing before the Public Utilities

Commission and numerous other matters, I did not believe that I could prepare an adequate

response to the motion within the allotted time and accordingly requested a two-week extension

of the filing deadline, to which defense counsel agreed, subject to the Court’s approval. The

continuances are necessary to accommodate counsel’s need for the extension of time to respond

to the motion and allow the Court to hear it prior to the PTC.

4. Counsel do not believe that the continuances will unduly delay or interfere with the

orderly progress of the case.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the law of California that the foregoing is true and

correct this 21th day of January 2005 in San Francisco, California.

/s /_________

Marc P. Fairman

SO STIPULATED:

MARC P. FAIRMAN

LAW OFFICES OF MARC P. FAIRMAN

Professional Corporation

By ________/s/______________ By_____________/s/____________

Marc P. Fairman Clifford Greenberg

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys For Defendants

Dated: March 21, 2006

SO ORDERED:

__________________________

United States District Judge

Dated:

RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney

NORA FRIMANN, Chief Trial Attorney

CLIFFORD GREENBERG, Senior Deputy

City Attorney

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

MARCH 23, 2006

Case 5:04-cv-01683-JW Document 47 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 3