Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02732/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02732-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

CRAIGIE, MCCARTHY & CLOW 

Telephone: 415/732-7788 · Facsimile: 415/732-7783

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 Regarding 

Hearing Date and Further Briefing on Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) and 60(b) Motions 

James M. Hanavan, State Bar No. 66097 

Kristen E. Drake, State Bar No. 202827 

CRAIGIE, McCARTHY & CLOW 

540 Pacific Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Telephone: (415) 732-7788 

Facsimile: (415) 732-7783 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Trevor Moss 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TREVOR MOSS, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TIBERON MINERALS LTD., 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: C 07-2732- SC 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE 

AND FURTHER BRIEFING ON 

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 59(e) AND 60(b) 

MOTIONS 

Hearing Date: February 8, 2008 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Location: Courtroom 1, 17th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Samuel Conti 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 58 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 4
CRAIGIE, MCCARTHY & CLOW 

Telephone: 415/732-7788 · Facsimile: 415/732-7783

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 Regarding 

Hearing Date and Further Briefing on Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) and 60(b) Motions 

In accordance with Local Rule 6-1, the parties stipulate that the hearing date on plaintiff’s 

pending motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 59 and 60 shall be continued one 

week to February 15, 2008 and that the time for plaintiff to reply to defendant’s opposition is 

extended one week to January 25, 2008. To accommodate defendant’s counsel’s schedule, the 

parties previously stipulated to continue the hearing date on plaintiff’s motions by one week to 

February 1, 2008 and to extend the time to file opposition and reply to opposition by one week. 

The Court ordered that the hearing date on plaintiff’s motions be continued to February 8, 2008 

rather than February 1, 2008. 

As noted in plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration attached as Exhibit “A”, the present 

continuance of the hearing date is sought to accommodate plaintiff’s counsel’s plans to attend his 

mother’s 93rd birthday in southern California on February 8, 2008, and the extension of time for 

plaintiff to reply to defendant’s opposition is sought so as to allow plaintiff’s counsel to obtain 

information from plaintiff as well as plaintiff’s business attorney, who is currently out of the 

country. 

Dated: January 15, 2008 CRAIGIE, McCARTHY & CLOW 

_______/s/ James M. Hanavan____________ By: James M. Hanavan 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Trevor Moss 

Dated: January 15, 2008 MBV LAW LLP 

____/s/ David J. Brown_____________

By: David J. Brown 

Attorneys for Defendant Tiberon Minerals Ltd. 

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 58 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 4
CRAIGIE, MCCARTHY & CLOW 

Telephone: 415/732-7788 · Facsimile: 415/732-7783

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 Regarding 

Hearing Date and Further Briefing on Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) and 60(b) Motions 

ORDER

 IT IS ORDERED that the hearing date on plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment Pursuant 

to FRCP 59(e) and Motion for Relief from Judgment Dismissing for Forum Non-Conveniens

Pursuant to FRCP 60(b) is continued to February 15, 2008 at 10:00 a.m., and that the time for 

plaintiff to reply to defendant’s opposition is extended one week to January 25, 2008. 

Dated: January ____, 2008 _______________________________ 

 The Honorable Samuel Conti 

 United States District Court Judge 

EXHIBIT “A”

DECLARATION OF JAMES M. HANAVAN STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE AND FURTHER BRIEFING ON 

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 59(e) AND 60(b) MOTIONS 

I, James M. Hanavan, declare: 

1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before all the courts of the State 

of California. I am affiliated with the law firm of Craigie, McCarthy & Clow, attorneys of record 

for plaintiff Trevor Moss. 

2. To accommodate defendant’s counsel’s schedule, the parties previously stipulated 

to continue the hearing date on plaintiff’s motions by one week to February 1, 2008 and to extend 

the time to file opposition and reply to opposition by one week. The Court ordered that the 

hearing date on plaintiff’s motions be continued to February 8, 2008 rather than February 1, 2008. 

3. My mother’s 93rd birthday is on February 8, 2008. I had made plans to attend her 

birthday in southern California on that date. To allow me to honor those plans, declarant seeks a 

one-week continuance of the hearing date to February 15, 2008. 

22 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 58 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 4
CRAIGIE, MCCARTHY & CLOW 

Telephone: 415/732-7788 · Facsimile: 415/732-7783

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 Regarding 

Hearing Date and Further Briefing on Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) and 60(b) Motions 

4. Further, declarant seeks a one-week extension of time for plaintiff to reply to 

defendant’s opposition so as to allow declarant to obtain information from plaintiff as well as 

plaintiff’s business attorney, who is currently out of the country. 

 5. Declarant sees no hardship being imposed on the Court or either part by these oneweek extensions. The case is dismissed and plaintiff’s post-judgment motions will not disrupt 

any case schedule other than the briefing and hearing date on the motions being sought by this 

Stipulation. 

6. I am over eighteen years of age and have the capacity to perceive and recollect. If 

called upon to testify, I am competent to testify to the foregoing matters, which are within my 

personal knowledge. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 

true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 15, 2008. 

_______/s/ James M. Hanavan____________

James M. Hanavan 

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 58 Filed 01/17/08 Page 4 of 4