Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06146/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06146-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Richmond
Defendant
Kevin Martin
Plaintiff

Document Text:

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING THE PARTIES’ JANUARY 12, 2010 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE; CASE NO. C-06-6146 CRB 

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

JEFFREY SLOAN (SBN 078179) 

jsloan@rshslaw.com

TIMOTHY G. YEUNG (SBN 186170) 

tyeung@rshslaw.com

STEVE CIKES (SBN 235413) 

scikes@rshslaw.com

RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 

350 Sansome Street, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94104-1304 

Telephone: (415) 678-3800 

Facsimile: (415) 678-3838 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

CITY OF RICHMOND 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEVIN MARTIN, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CITY OF RICHMOND, 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: C-06-6146 CRB 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

VACATING THE PARTIES’ JANUARY 12, 

2010 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE 

Complaint Filed: September 29, 2006 

Trial Date: Not Set

Plaintiff Kevin Martin (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant City of Richmond (“City”), through 

their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2009, the Court issued a Case Management and Settlement 

Conference Order scheduling deadlines by which the parties must complete discovery, bring 

dispositive motions, and stipulate to conditional collective action certification. The order also 

required the parties to appear for a mandatory settlement conference with Magistrate Judge 

Spero on October 26, 2009. 

WHEREAS, on two separate occasions, the parties have continued, with court approval, 

the dates set forth in the April 21, 2009 Case Management and Settlement Conference Order. 

The continuances were based, in part, on the ground that the parties were actively participating in 

informal settlement discussions in an effort to resolve this matter in its entirety, without the need 

Case 3:06-cv-06146-CRB Document 100 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 3
RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING THE PARTIES’ JANUARY 12, 2010 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE; CASE NO. C-06-6146 CRB 

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

for Court involvement. 

WHEREAS, on July 31, 2009, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice rescheduling the 

parties’ October 26, 2009 mandatory settlement conference with Judge Spero to January 12, 

2010. 

WHEREAS, on October 21, 2009, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order 

requesting that the deadlines scheduled in this matter for completing discovery and bringing 

dispositive motions be vacated in light of the progress being made by the parties in their informal 

settlement discussions. The Court approved the stipulation and proposed order on October 22, 

2009. The order requires the parties to appear for a case management conference on January 8, 

2010 and provides that if the parties are unable to reach agreement on the terms of a settlement 

by that time, that the Court then order them to participate in a subsequent settlement conference 

with Judge Spero in order to mediate any outstanding matters preventing settlement. 

WHEREAS, since receiving the Court’s October 22, 2009 order, the parties have made 

significant progress in their informal settlement discussions. Counsel for the parties believe they 

are extraordinarily close to reaching an agreement in principal on an overall settlement, but are 

still negotiating specific terms. Moreover, once this process is completed, they will require 

additional time in order to present the settlement to their respective clients for final approval. 

WHEREAS, counsel for the parties are confident that they can reach a tentative 

agreement on all settlement terms prior to the January 8, 2010 case management conference. 

Counsel for the parties will then recommend to their respective clients that they formally agree to 

the terms of the tentative settlement agreement. Accordingly, counsel for the parties do not 

believe a January 12, 2010 settlement conference would be either necessary or helpful at this 

juncture. 

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. That the January 12, 2009 mandatory settlement conference be vacated from the 

Court’s calendar. 

2. That the Court evaluate the need for a mandatory settlement conference when the 

parties appear at the January 8, 2010 case management conference. 

Case 3:06-cv-06146-CRB Document 100 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 3
RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

3 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER VACATING THE PARTIES’ JANUARY 12, 2010 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE; CASE NO. C-06-6146 CRB 

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

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: December 29, 2009 RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP 

By: /s/ Steve Cikes ____________

Steve Cikes 

Attorney for Defendant City of Richmond 

 

Dated: December 29, 2009 RAINS LUCIA STERN, PC 

By:__ /s/ Peter Hoffmann__ 

Peter Hoffmann 

Attorney for Plaintiff Kevin Martin 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: , 2009 

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Jan. 4, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:06-cv-06146-CRB Document 100 Filed 01/05/10 Page 3 of 3