UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 7, 2010
MARYANNE KHOO, PLAINTIFF(S),
HUNT & HENRIQUES, DEFENDANT(S).
ORDER STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] FINDING AS MOOT REFERRAL ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS TO ADR
Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5:
The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process:
9Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4) 9 Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5) 4 9 Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
(Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR, must participate in an ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5)
9 Private ADR (please identify process and provider)
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
9 the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered.
9 other requested deadline
Dated: 3/30/2010 Michael S. Arguss Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated: 3/30/2010 Jeffrey A. Topor Attorney for Defendant
*** ORDER ****
On March 31, 2010, the parties noticed the Court that they had reached a settlement. Based on the Notice of Settlement, the Court finds the parties referral to ADR as MOOT . The Court will address the parties' Notice of Settlement in a separate order.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.