STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Club One Casino, Inc. ("Club One") and Club One Casino, Inc. as successor in interest to Club One Acquisition Corp. ("COAC", and together with Club One, "Plaintiff"), on the one hand, and Defendant Louis Sarantos ("Defendant"), on the other hand, hereby stipulate by and through their counsel of record to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference in this matter for 45 days, or as soon thereafter as the Court is available.

RECITALS

1. On August 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against George Sarantos and Defendant Louis Sarantos in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Fresno, known as Case No. 15CECG02704. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in state court on December 10, 2015, and dismissed George Sarantos from the case with prejudice on September 6, 2016. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in state court naming Dusten Perry, John Cardot, Shawn Sarantos, Joseph F. Capps, and Lodi Francesconi as defendants (the "Remaining Defendants") and alleging claims for, among other things, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

2. Defendant removed this case to federal court on June 19, 2017, based on federal question subject matter jurisdiction arising from Plaintiff's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims [Docket Nos. 1-3]. At the time of removal, none of the Remaining Defendants had been formally served with the operative Second Amended Complaint or the state court summons.

3. On June 19, 2017, the Court set a Mandatory Scheduling Conference for September 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9 of the above-captioned court [Docket No 4]. The Court's Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference provides that the Court is unable to conduct a Scheduling Conference until all defendants have been served with the summons and complaint.

4. Because none of the Remaining Defendants had been formally served prior to removal, a new summons from this Court was required before Plaintiff could serve the Remaining Defendants. Plaintiff accordingly filed a Motion for Issuance of Summons which is set to be heard on August 15, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5 of the above-captioned court [Docket Nos. 6-7].

STIPULATION

Based upon the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, Plaintiff and Defendant hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

A. Good cause exists to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference because the Court has not yet issued a summons and Plaintiff has therefore been unable to serve the Remaining Defendants. Additionally, the deadline for the parties to meet and confer regarding their Joint Scheduling Report is the same day that Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Summons is set to be heard. In order to allow sufficient time for issuance of a summons, for Plaintiff to effect service on the Remaining Defendants, and to conserve the parties' and the Court's resources, Plaintiff and Defendant hereby stipulate to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference for 45 days or as soon thereafter as the Court is available.

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

ORDER

The Court, having considered the foregoing Stipulation, finds there is good cause to continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for September 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 9 is continued to October 30, 2017 at 3:30 p.m. A Joint Scheduling Report is due one week before the new conference date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.