UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 8, 2013
GARRETT KOEHLER, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND ON BEHALF
LITEHOUSE, INC., AN IDAHO CORPORATION, DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Susan Illston United States Magistrate District Judge
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:
9 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)
✔9 Private ADR (please identify process and provider)
JAMS, San Francisco, CA
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
9 The parties' stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 The parties' stipulation is modified as follows, and IT IS SO ORDERED.
When filing this document in ECF, please be sure to use the appropriate Docket Event, e.g., "Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting Mediation."
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.