Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02732/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02732-4/pdf.json

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

---

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE AND FURTHER

BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 59 AND 60 MOTIONS – CASE NO. C 07 2732 SC

61001.01\\384622.DOC

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

      	   
 
 

	        
	         

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 AND 60

MOTIONS

Date: January 25,2008

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Dept.: Courtroom 1, 17th Floor

Judge: Hon. Samuel Conti

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 1, 2008 and that the time to file opposition and to reply to said opposition shall

also be extended one week. No other time extensions have been sought on these motions and the

extension is to accommodate defendant’s counsel’s schedule as noted in the attached Exhibit A,

Declaration of David J. Brown.

DATED: January 3, 2008 MBV LAW LLP

By /s/

DAVID J. BROWN

Attorneys for Defendant

TIBERON MINERALS LTD.

///

DAVID J. BROWN (State Bar No. 56628)

MBV LAW LLP

855 Front Street

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: 415-781-4400

Facsimile: 415-989-5143

Attorneys for Defendant

TIBERON MINERALS LTD.

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 52 Filed 01/07/08 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE AND FURTHER

BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 59 AND 60 MOTIONS – CASE NO. C 07 2732 SC

61001.01\\384622.DOC

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

      	   
 
 

	        
	         

DATED: January 3, 2008 CRAIGIE, MCCARTHY & CLOW

By /s/

JAMES M. HANAVAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TREVOR MOSS

ORDER

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

to FRCP59(e) and Motion for Relief from Judgment Dismissing for Forum non-Conveniens

Pursuant to FRCP 60(b) is continued to February 1, 2008 at 10:00 a.m., and that the time to

respond to the motions and to reply to the response is extended one week.

DATED:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

1/7/08

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 52 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER REGARDING HEARING DATE AND FURTHER

BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 59 AND 60 MOTIONS – CASE NO. C 07 2732 SC

61001.01\\384622.DOC

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

      	   
 
 

	        
	         

EXHIBIT A

DECLARATION OF DAVID J. BROWN IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION CONTINUING

HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO

FRCP59(e) AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT DISMISSING FOR FORUM

NON-CONVENIENS PURSUANT TO FRCP 60(b):

I, DAVID J. BROWN, declare:

1. I am the lead attorney in this matter for the defendant. I am familiar with the

matter and I have direct and specific personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and I would

testify competently to them if called upon to do so.

2. I need an additional week to prepare defendant’s response to plaintiff’s Rule 59

and 60 motions. I had and took a scheduled Christmas vacation with my family from Christmas

day until New Year’s Eve. While I initially thought I could prepare the defendant’s response to

the motions without additional time, I find that I need another week.

3. With respect to these motions, no prior time extension has been sought. Before

the Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, relatively short extensions of time to respond to

the complaint had been obtained.

4. I see no hardship being imposed on the Court or either party by this one week

continuance. The case is dismissed and these post-judgment motions brought by the plaintiff will

not disrupt any case schedule other than the briefing and hearing date on the motions being

sought by this Stipulation.

I declare and state under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on January 3, 2008 at San Francisco, California.

/s/

DAVID J. BROWN

Case 3:07-cv-02732-SC Document 52 Filed 01/07/08 Page 3 of 3