Opinion
Case Number: C06-05302 RMW
03-18-2013
FREDERICK BATES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, ROBERT DAVIS, CITY OF SAN JOSE CHIEF OF POLICE, ADONNA AMOROSO, CITY OF SAN JOSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, Defendants.
RICHARD DOYLE City Attorney RICHARD D. NORTH Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF SAN JOSE, ROBERT DAVIS, and ADONNA AMOROSO FREDERICK BATES, Pro Se
RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (88625)
NORA FRIMANN, Assistant City Attorney (93249)
SHANNON SMYTH-MENDOZA, Senior Deputy City Attorney (188509)
RICHARD D. NORTH, Deputy City Attorney (225617)
Office of the City Attorney
200 East Santa Clara Street, 16th Floor
San Jose, California 95113-1905
Telephone Number: (408) 535-1900
Facsimile Number: (408) 998-3131
E-Mail Address: cao.main@sanjoseca.gov
Attorneys for CITY OF SAN JOSE, ROBERT DAVIS,
and ADONNA AMOROSO
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING
DATE AND SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF'S RULE
60 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT
Date: March 29, 2013
Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
STIPULATION
Plaintiff FREDERICK BATES' ("Plaintiff") Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 ("Motion") is currently scheduled to be heard on March 29, 2013 at 9:00 am. The parties hereby stipulate and respectfully request a continuation of the hearing date to April 26, 2013. The parties further herein agree to an accordant schedule for filing and service of the opposition and reply briefs.
Whereas, Plaintiff served the Motion by U.S. Mail on February 20, 2013;
Whereas, Plaintiff filed the motion on February 21, 2013;
Whereas, Plaintiff selected the March 29, 2013 hearing date on the Motion without consulting with counsel for defendants CITY OF SAN JOSE, ROBERT DAVIS and ADONNA AMOROSO (collectively "Defendants"), as Plaintiff acknowledges in his January 19, 2013 statement filed with the Motion ("... if the hearing date I have selected is not suitable for the City, my schedule is flexible for almost any other date as long as I'm given adequate notice");
Whereas, Richard D. North, counsel for Defendants, was out of the office from February 19, 2013 through February 28, 2013, and returned to find the Motion;
Whereas, Defendants' opposition to the Motion is currently due to be served and filed on March 6, 2013;
Whereas, the Motion is based upon an extensive factual and procedural record spanning nine years, with which counsel for Defendants is currently unfamiliar, necessitating additional time for Defendants to formulate a response to the Motion;
Whereas, the parties have met and conferred and agreed to continue the hearing date on the Motion to April 26, 2013;
Whereas, the parties have met and conferred and agreed that Defendants' opposition to the Motion shall be filed and served on or before April 2, 2013 and Plaintiff's reply shall be filed and served on or before April 9, 2013:
Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the hearing date on the Motion be continued to April 26, 2013 at 9:00 am, with the opposition to be filed on or before April 2, 2013 and the reply to be filed and served on or before April 9, 2013.
It is so stipulated.
RICHARD DOYLE
City Attorney
By: ___________
RICHARD D. NORTH
Deputy City Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants, CITY OF SAN JOSE,
ROBERT DAVIS, and ADONNA AMOROSO
FREDERICK BATES, Pro Se
By: ___________
Frederick Bates
Plaintiff
ORDER
Having read and considered the parties' stipulation, and finding good cause for the relief requested therein, the Court orders the following:
1. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment ("Motion"), filed February 21, 2013, is continued from March 29, 2013 to April 26, 2013 at 9:00 am;
2. Defendants' opposition to the Motion shall be served and filed on or before April 2, 2013 and Plaintiff's reply shall be served and filed on or before April 9, 2013.
___________
Hon. Ronald M. Whyte,
Senior District Judge, N.D. Cal.