Opinion
CASE NO. C11-01526 EJD
10-13-2011
VINH HUU PHAM, et al. Plaintiff(s), v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al. Defendant(s).
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) _______________
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 _______________
Stuart D. K irchick
Attorney for Plaintiff
Cl ifford S. Green C erg
Attorney for Defendant
When filing this document in ECF, please be sure to use the appropriate ADR Docket Event, e.g., "Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting Early Neutral Evaluation." [PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the captioned matter is hereby referred to:
[] Non-binding Arbitration
[√] Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE)
[] Mediation
[] Private ADR
Deadline for ADR session
[√] 90 days from the date of this order.IT IS SO ORDERED.
[] other _______________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE