From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hajro v. Barrett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 10, 2011
No. C 10-1772 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2011)

Opinion

No. C 10-1772 MEJ

11-10-2011

MIRSAD HAJRO, Plaintiff, v. ROBIN BARRETT, San Francisco Field Office; et al.

Respectfully submitted, MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney MELANIE L. PROCTOR ILA C. DEISS Assistant United States Attorneys Attorneys for Defendants


MELINDA HAAG, CSBN 132612

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON, CSBN 88143

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Civil Division

ILA C. DEISS, NY SBN 3052909

MELANIE L. PROCTOR, CSBN 228971

Assistant United States Attorneys

Attorneys for Defendants

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE

TO FILE OBJECTIONS (Elec. Dkt. Nos.

50 and 51); PROPOSED ORDER

Defendants hereby oppose Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File Objections to Defendants' Revised Disputed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Elec. Dkt. Nos. 50 and 51. First, Plaintiff's motions are not in compliance with Civ. L.R. 7-11 because they are not accompanied by a stipulation or a declaration explaining why a stipulation could not be obtained. Civ. L.R. 7-11(a).

Second, the proper vehicle for filing oppositional findings of fact to Defendants' findings of fact would have been through filing revised findings of fact, pursuant to the Court's minute order. Elec. Dkt. No. 45. Although Plaintiff did not file revised findings of fact on November 9, 2011, Defendants have no objection to Plaintiff filing his revised findings of fact and conclusions of law out of time.

Respectfully submitted,

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

MELANIE L. PROCTOR

ILA C. DEISS

Assistant United States Attorneys

Attorneys for Defendants

PROPOSED ORDER

Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File Objections (Elec. Dkt. Nos. 50 and 51) are hereby DENIED. Plaintiff shall have until 4:00 p.m. on Monday, November 14, 2011, to file revised findings of fact and conclusions of law. This disposes of Elec. Dkt. Nos. 50 and 51.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Maria-Elena James


Summaries of

Hajro v. Barrett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 10, 2011
No. C 10-1772 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2011)
Case details for

Hajro v. Barrett

Case Details

Full title:MIRSAD HAJRO, Plaintiff, v. ROBIN BARRETT, San Francisco Field Office; et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Nov 10, 2011

Citations

No. C 10-1772 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2011)