Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nicholas Murray, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Time Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 27, 2012

NICHOLAS MURRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
TIME INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michelle C. Doolin

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

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:

Court Processes:

☐ Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4) ☐ Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5) ☐ 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: √ Private ADR (please identify process and provider): private mediation before a mutually agreeable neutral selected from JAMS or The California Academy of Distinguished Neutrals.

The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:

☐ the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered.

√ other requested deadline: 180 days after entry of the order referring the case to an

ADR process. Defendant Time Inc. contends an order mandating ADR within 90 days could make the ADR process premature.

Dated: April 26, 2012 /s/ Ari J. Sharg Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: April 26, 2012 /s/ Michelle C. Doolin Attorney for Defendant ☐ The parties' stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED. ☐ The parties' stipulation is modified as follows, and IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

When filing this document in ECF, please be sure to use the appropriate Docket Event, e.g., "Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting Mediation."

FILER'S ATTESTATION

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X, Subparagraph B, the undersigned attests that all parties have concurred in the filing of this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2.

Dated: April 26, 2012

COOLEY LLP

Michelle C. Doolin (179445) Email: doolinmc@cooley.com Attorneys for Defendant TIME INC.

20120427

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.