Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

AGUILAR v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, 1:13-CV-00437-LJO-GSA. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130808620 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 07, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge. Whereas, the Mandatory Scheduling Conference in the above-captioned matter is presently set for August 14, 2013; Whereas, the Court on July 25, 2013 issued its order (1) granting in part and denying in part the motion of defendant General Motors LLC ("GM") to dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, (2) granting plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint no later than August 1
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

Whereas, the Mandatory Scheduling Conference in the above-captioned matter is presently set for August 14, 2013;

Whereas, the Court on July 25, 2013 issued its order (1) granting in part and denying in part the motion of defendant General Motors LLC ("GM") to dismiss plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, (2) granting plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint no later than August 14, 2013, and (3) giving GM twenty days to file a response thereto (no later than September 3, 2013);

Whereas, plaintiff intends to file a second amended complaint and GM intends at present to file another motion to dismiss which the parties have agreed to set for hearing on October 8, 2013 in accordance with Judge O'Neill's law and motion procedures;

Whereas, it appears that the pleadings will not be fully at issue until, at the earliest, late October 2013 and therefore the parties agree that their joint report and the scheduling conference would be premature on the dates presently set and that the requested continuance would avoid unnecessary expenditures of time by counsel and the Court given the forthcoming filing of a second amended complaint and motion to dismiss; and

Whereas, the parties have initiated the Rule 26(f) conference so that formal discovery may be propounded and prosecution of this case will not be delayed by a continuance of the Mandatory Scheduling Conference,

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff and GM, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference may be set on November 13, 2013 or such other date thereafter as may be convenient to the Court's calendar.

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for August 14, 2013 shall be continued to November 13, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer