UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
February 23, 2011
JULIE K. NEVES, PLAINTIFF,
FULLER & THALER ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, AND RUSSELL J. FULLER
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jeffrey S. White, U.S. District Court Judge
STIPULATION TO AMEND ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL MATTERS TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF COURT ORDERED MEDIATION FROM MARCH 7, 2011 TO APRIL 29, 2011 AND [PROPOSED ORDER
Plaintiff Julie K. Neves and Defendants Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc.28 hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
Whereas on November 15, 2010 the court issued its Order Scheduling Trial and Pretrial3Matters and in Section C. of its order referred the matter to court-connected mediation, to be conducted by March 7, 2011;
Whereas, no court approved mediation panelist has been selected;
Whereas, the parties remain willing to participate in the court ordered mediation, but will be unable to complete the mediation by the court ordered deadline of March 7, 2011; and
Whereas, the parties jointly request that the court extend the compliance deadline to April29, 2011, but do not propose any other changes to the court's November 15, 2010 order.
The parties stipulate to an order amending the November 15, 2010 Order Scheduling Trial4 and Pretrial Matters to extend the time for the completion of the court-connected mediation from March 7, 2011 to April 29, 2011.
Respectfully, ANDERLINI & EMERICK LLP By: MERRILL G. EMERICK, of attorneys for Plaintiff JULIE K. NEVES Dated: February 23, 2011 Respectfully, HOWARD RICE NEMOROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABIN By: DIPANWITA DEB AMAR, of attorneys for Defendants FULLER & THALER ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. and RUSSELL J. FULLER
The parties having stipulated and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered thatThe Court's November 15, 2010 Order Scheduling Trial and Pretrial matters is amended to extend 5 the time for completion of court-connected mediation to April 29, 2011. The remaining portions of 6 the court's order are not changed and remain in effect. 7
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.