The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE
Date: September 12, 2008 Time: 10:30 a.m. Courtroom: 7, 19th Floor
Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a), (f); Civil Local Rules 7-12, 16-2(d)-(e)]
WHEREAS, defendants the City of Oakland ("City") and DeSilva Gates Construction, L.P. ("DeSilva") were served with plaintiff's Complaint and the accompanying Summons and Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference on or about July 3 and 10, 2006, respectively;
WHEREAS, the City, DeSilva and representatives of plaintiff Millsmont Homeowners Association ("MHA") engaged in extended settlement discussions and an informal exchange of information prior to and following service of the Complaint;
WHEREAS, the parties' settlement discussions produced a Consent Decree documenting a proposed settlement that provides an opportunity for restoration of Chimes Creek, an accompanying Access Agreement to facilitate performance of tasks contemplated by the Consent Farella Braun & Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Decree, and other documents included as exhibits to the Consent Decree; on November 20, 2007, the parties resolved all remaining settlement issues and placed on the record their agreement on the terms of the Consent Decree and accompanying exhibits, subject to approval by the Oakland City Council and individual homeowners;
WHEREAS, issues affecting settlement emerged thereafter whereby (1) one of the MHA representatives claimed damage to her property from sewer repairs by the City and its contractor, and (2) some of the homeowners questioned the scope of the Access Agreement;
WHEREAS, with the assistance of Chief Magistrate Judge James Larson at a mediation
WHEREAS, counsel for the parties diligently sought to resolve these issues, and MHA's counsel has confirmed that they are resolved, leaving only the parties' and homeowners' signatures to be obtained on the Consent Decree and Access Agreement, and a motion for Court approval of the Consent Decree to be filed, in concluding this settlement; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree that a further extension of the deadline to respond to the Complaint and a corresponding continuance of Case Management dates will allow counsel to obtain signatures and seek Court approval of the Consent Decree, and that this will facilitate conclusion of the settlement, avoid potentially unnecessary time and expense, promote judicial economy and serve the public interest.
THEREFORE, subject to the approval of the Court, the parties hereby stipulate and agree that there is good cause for a further extension of time, to and including August 8, 2008, for the Management dates (subject to being vacated upon the lodging of the proposed Consent Decree), as follows:
Last day to meet and confer re initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR August 22, 2008 process selection and discovery plan Report, file Case Management Statement, and file Rule 26(f) Report Farella Braun & Martel LLP 235 ...