Free Reply Memorandum - District Court of California - California


File Size: 53.4 kB
Pages: 2
Date: May 15, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 349 Words, 2,177 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/196343/32.pdf

Download Reply Memorandum - District Court of California ( 53.4 kB)


Preview Reply Memorandum - District Court of California
Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 32

Filed 05/15/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Wayne Johnson, SBN: 112588 Law Offices of Wayne Johnson P.O. Box 19157 Oakland, CA 94619 (510) 451-1166 Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ODOM, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. C. WILSON, et al.,

CIVIL NO.: C07 04992 TEH (MEJ) RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY DATE: TIME: CTRM:

DEFENDANTS.
__________________________________________/

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant's attorney, Dale Allen, Jr., has filed a Notice of Unavailability. He cites Tenderloin Housing Clinic vs. Sparks (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 299. The Tenderloin case involved a party setting a matter during a time in which he had been advised opposing counsel would be on vacation or otherwise unavailable. The court found that setting any matter, barring good cause, could result in sanctions. Obviously, that case applies only to other attorneys and not the court. Moreover, it only applies when there is not good cause and when the new matter is set after learning of the opposing attorney's unavailability.

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY - 1

Case 3:07-cv-04992-TEH

Document 32

Filed 05/15/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

If opposing counsel is attempting to avoid appearing for the June 20, 2008, settlement conference, the appropriate pleading would appear to be a motion to continue, based upon good cause. In the case of a law firm as large as Low, Ball & Lynch, any of the senior associates might fill in for Dale Allen, Jr. Furthermore, the only person who would be a necessary party would be the person or entity with authority to settle. This is not like a pretrial conference where the trial attorneys need be present. The court should consider the fact that Defendants requested this settlement conference and the parties have had a difficult time scheduling this settlement conference. DATED: May 15, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE JOHNSON

_________________ WAYNE JOHNSON Attorney for Plaintiff

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY - 2