UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
August 24, 2011
RUSSELL HINTON CO., A CALIFORNIA
PLAINTIFF & COUNTER-DEFENDANT,
DEFENDANTS & COUNTER-CLAIMANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: District Judge Susan Illston
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (I) VACATING RULE 26(F) DISCLOSURE DEADLINES AND INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PENDING BINDING DISTRICT COUNCIL 16 OF THE ARBITRATION AND (II) SETTING 20INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALLIED TRADES AND DOUG
Complaint Filed: April 4, 2011
The parties, by and through their undersigned attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and 25 agree and respectfully request that the Court vacate (i) the Initial Case Management Conference 26 currently scheduled for September 2, 2011, together with pre-conference filing requirement 27 deadlines; (ii) the Rule 26(f) Report filing deadline currently set for August 18, 2011; and (iii) the Rule 26 Initial Disclosure exchange deadline also set for August 18, 2011, pending the parties participation in and completion of binding arbitration, which has been selected by the parties and 2 to which this case was referred pursuant to this Court's Order of August 9, 2011 (Docket No. 23).
This application is requested on the grounds that the parties have
agreed to and the Court
has approved by Order the referral of this case to binding
arbitration in accordance with the 5 provisions of the operative
Collective Bargaining Agreement to which the parties are signatories.
That Collective Bargaining Agreement provides for binding arbitration before an arbitrator 7 selected by the parties or by the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service. Pursuant to 8 this Court's Order Referring this Case to Private ADR, which was entered on August 9, 2011, the 9 deadline for completion of the binding arbitration is December 5, 2011. The parties expect that 10 the matter will either be dismissed in accordance with the arbitration award or application will be 11 made for judgment confirming the arbitration award following the ADR procedure. As a result, 12 neither Rule 26 disclosures, a report thereon, nor a Case Management Conference and pre-trial 13 scheduling order are necessary.
The parties expect the arbitration will fully resolve this controversy
and will therefore
moot the need for trial before this Court and all attendant
pre-trial dates and procedures.
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court vacate the filing deadlines set forth above together with the Initial Case Management Conference and set a post-arbitration 18 status conference at the Court's convenience some time after December 5, 2011. 19 20
Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICES OF A. PETER RAUSCH,JR. Dated: August 16, 2011 By: /s/ A. Peter Rausch, Jr. A. PETER RAUSCH,JR. Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, Russell Hinton Co., a California corporation Signed Electronically for eFiling
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I undersigned hereby certify that on August 16, 2011, I electronically
filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court,
Northern District of California by 4 using the CM/ECF system. I
certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users
5 and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.
A. PETER RAUSCH,JR.
LAW OFFICES OF A. PETER RAUSCH,JR. Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.