Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00960/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00960-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Wrongful Death

---

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO CONTINUE CHANGE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ACCORDINGLY; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Page 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

29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BROOKE MCLAUGHLIN,

Plaintiff,

Vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C 04-0960 RS

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND TO CONTINUE CHANGE

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ACCORDINGLY; [PROPOSED] ORDER

ROBERT E. CARTWRIGHT, JR., ESQ. (SBN: 104284)

The Cartwright Law Firm, Inc.

222 Front Street, 5th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Phone: (415) 433-0444

Facsimile: (415) 433-0449

Attorneys for Plaintiff Brooke McLaughlin

KEVIN V. RYAN (SBN: 118321)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (SBN: 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

CLAIRE T. CORMIER (SBN: 154364)

Assistant United States Attorney

150 Almaden Blvd., Ste 900

San Jose, CA 95113-2009

Phone: 408-535-5082

Attorneys for Defendant

*E-FILED 7/24/06*

Case 5:04-cv-00960-RS Document 39 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO CONTINUE CHANGE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ACCORDINGLY; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Page 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

29

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, by and

through their respective undersigned attorneys, as follows:

On or about July 20, 2006, Plaintiff’s counsel was advised by Defense Counsel that

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was due on July 19,

2006. Plaintiff’s failure to file her opposition was due to a clerical error, in which Plaintiff’s

deadline to file her opposition was calendared in accordance with California Code of Civil

Procedure, rather that the appropriate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s counsel

requested, and Defense counsel has graciously agreed, to reschedule the hearing on said motion

and to reschedule briefing deadlines.

Accordingly, the parties request the following changes to the current hearing on

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment:

1. Plaintiff’s Deadline for filing opposition to MSJ: August 4, 2006

2. Defendant’s Reply: August 18, 2006

3. Hearing: September 6, 2006

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Respectfully submitted,

THE CARTWRIGHT LAW FIRM, INC.

_____/S/_________________________

Robert E. Cartwright, Jr.

Dated: July 24, 2006

Case 5:04-cv-00960-RS Document 39 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO CONTINUE CHANGE BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ACCORDINGLY; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Page 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

29

KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

_____/S/________________________

Claire T. Cormier

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: July 24, 2006

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATIN AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ___________________ ___________________________

Hon. RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

July 24, 2006

Case 5:04-cv-00960-RS Document 39 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 of 3