UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 6, 2011
BEN FURTH, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFF(S),
FREDERICK P. FURTH, AN INDIVIDUAL, FURTH FIRM LLP, AND DOES 1-100 DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donna M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge
THE ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
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:
9 Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4) 9 Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5) 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).
Private Process: ✔9 Private ADR please identify process and provider Private mediation with Richard Zitrin of Carlson, Calladine & Peterson LLP, on June 27, 2011 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
Mediation scheduled for June 27, 2011
Frank A. Cialone
Attorney for Plaintiff
Daniel S. Mason
Attorney for Defendant
Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the captioned matter is hereby
referred to: 9 Non-binding Arbitration 9
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) 9
Private ADR Deadline for ADR session 9 90 days
from the date of this order.
other no later than
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.