From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hsieh v. Stanford Univ.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Oct 24, 2011
Case No. C10-05629 HRL (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. C10-05629 HRL

10-24-2011

FANG-YUH HSIEH, Plaintiff, v. STANFORD UNIVERSITY; and PHILIP LAVORI, in his individual capacity, Defendants.

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP SARAH G. FLANAGAN #70845 WESLEY M. SPOWHN #252939 Post Office Box 7880 Attorneys for Defendant STANFORD UNIVERSITY FANG-YUH HSIEH Plaintiff - Pro Se


PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

SARAH G. FLANAGAN #70845

WESLEY M. SPOWHN #252939

Post Office Box 7880

Attorneys for Defendant

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

FANG-YUH HSIEH

Plaintiff - Pro Se

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER OF DEFENDANT STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND PLAINTIFF

FANG-YUH HSIEH EXTENDING TIME FOR FILING OF OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS RE

STANFORD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


Local Rule 6-2(a)

Hearing Date: December 6, 2011

Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.

Location: 280 South First St.

Courtroom 2, 5th Fl.

San Jose, CA

Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Defendant Stanford University ("Stanford") and Plaintiff Fang-Yuh Hsieh ("Hsieh") submit this stipulation and ask the Court to enter an Order adopting and confirming this agreement.

Plaintiff Hsieh represents to the Court as follows:

(1) Stanford on October 11, 2011 filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, calendared for hearing by the Court on December 6, 2011. Under Local Rule 7-3 as in effect until September 8, 2011, Hsieh's Opposition papers would have been due 21 days before the hearing date, i.e. on November 15, 2011, and Stanford's Reply papers would have been due 14 days before the hearing date, i.e. on November 22, 2011. However, the current Local Rule 7-3, as amended on September 8, 2011, measures the time going forward from the filing of the Motion, not backward from the hearing date, so that Hsieh's Opposition is in fact due 14 days after Stanford filed its Motion, i.e. on October 25, 2011, and Stanford's Reply is due 7 days later, i.e. on November 1, 2011.

(2) Hsieh will continue to represent himself pro se. However, Hsieh wanted an attorney's assistance, on an informal consultant basis, in preparing his Opposition. He asked an attorney in San Francisco to assist him, and that attorney agreed. When the attorney agreed, he was under the impression that the prior version of Local Rule 7-3 was still in effect, so that he thought Hsieh had until November 15, 2011 to file his Opposition. However, upon examining the matter this week, the attorney determined that the new Rule imposed a time deadline that is simply not workable under that attorney's schedule.

(3) Stanford is courteously willing to accommodate Hsieh, as well as the attorney whom he is consulting, by extending by ten days Hsieh's time to file his Opposition. Therefore, Hsieh's Opposition will be due on November 4, 2011. Stanford's Reply will be due on November 11, 2011.

(4) There have been no prior time modifications of any kind in this case, whether by stipulation or by Court order.

(5) The requested time extensions will have no effect on the schedule for this case, given that the December 6 hearing date for Stanford's Summary Judgment Motion will not change.

By: ____

Fang-Yuh (Frank) Hsieh, pro per

Stanford, by and through its counsel, hereby stipulates to the modified schedule proposed in paragraph 3, supra.

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP

SARAH G. FLANAGAN

WESLEY M. SPOWHN

Wesley M. Spowhn

Attorneys for Defendant STANFORD UNIVERSITY

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Docket No. C10-05629 HRL


PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

I, Wesley Spowhn, the undersigned, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within cause. I am employed by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP in the City of San Francisco, California.

2. My business address is 50 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2228. My mailing address is 50 Fremont Street, P. O. Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880.

3. On October 19, 2011, I served a true copy of the attached document titled exactly

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER OF DEFENDANT STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND PLAINTIFF FANG-YUH HSIEH EXTENDING TIME FOR FILING OF OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS RE STANFORD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
by placing it in an addressed sealed envelope and depositing it with the United States Postal Service for delivery to the following:
Fang-Yuh Hsieh
1394 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 19th day of October, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

Wesley M. Spowhn C10-05629 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Sarah G. Flanagan sarah.flanagan@pillsburylaw.com

Margaret Young Hughes maggie.hughes@pillsburylaw.com

Wesley Michael Spowhn wesley.spowhn@pillsburylaw.com

Notice will be provided by mail to:

Fang-Yuh Hsieh

1394 University Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94301

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.


Summaries of

Hsieh v. Stanford Univ.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Oct 24, 2011
Case No. C10-05629 HRL (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2011)
Case details for

Hsieh v. Stanford Univ.

Case Details

Full title:FANG-YUH HSIEH, Plaintiff, v. STANFORD UNIVERSITY; and PHILIP LAVORI, in…

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

Date published: Oct 24, 2011

Citations

Case No. C10-05629 HRL (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2011)