Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Schmidt v. Shasta County Marshal's Office, 2:14-cv-02471-MCE. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190322a23 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND RELATED DATES MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff Jaime Schmidt ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Superior Court, County of Shasta ("Defendant"), through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, during the January 10, 2019 Final Pretrial Conference, the Court notified the parties that the February 25, 2019 trial start date previously set in this matter was no longer available and offered April 8, 2019 a
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Plaintiff Jaime Schmidt ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Superior Court, County of Shasta ("Defendant"), through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, during the January 10, 2019 Final Pretrial Conference, the Court notified the parties that the February 25, 2019 trial start date previously set in this matter was no longer available and offered April 8, 2019 as a potential alternative trial date, which the parties ultimately selected.

WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019, the Court issued a Final Pretrial Order (ECF No. 99), confirming the April 8, 2019 trial date and stating that "the estimated length of trial is eight (8) days." The Final Pretrial Order also set March 25, 2019 as the deadline for the parties to submit various pre-trial submissions and complete other pre-trial tasks.

WHEREAS, on February 21, 2019, the Court issued an Amended Final Pretrial Order (ECF No. 103), which did not alter or otherwise impact the April 8, 2019 trial date or the March 25, 2019 deadline.

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiff has had a family matter arisen that conflicts with the April 8, 2019 trial start date.

WHEREAS, the Court has notified the parties that it could potentially continue the jury trial in this matter to July 22, 2019, but could only offer six (6) days for the presentation of evidence, rather than the currently allotted eight (8).

WHEREAS, to accommodate counsel for Plaintiff's family matter, the parties wish to continue the jury trial in this matter to July 22, 2019, with the understanding that they will only be provided six (6) days for the presentation of evidence. However, the parties request that should any additional trial dates immediately preceding or following before or after July 22, 2019 become available, they be provided those dates in order to bring the estimated trial length back to the originally allotted eight (8) days.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE THAT:

1. The trial date in this matter be continued from April 8, 2019 to July 22, 2019, with the understanding that the parties will only be provided six (6) days for the presentation of evidence; however but should any additional trial dates immediately preceding or following July 22, 2019 become available, the parties request they be provided those dates in order to bring the estimated trial length back to the currently allotted eight (8) days. 2. The March 25, 2019 deadline set forth in the Court's Amended Pretrial Order (ECF No. 103) for the parties to submit various pre-trial documents and complete other pre-trial tasks be continued to July 8, 2019.

ORDER

Based on the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ordered that the jury trial in this matter be continued from April 8, 2019 to July 22, 2019 and that the parties will have six (6) days for the presentation of evidence. The March 25, 2019 deadline set forth in the Court's Amended Final Pretrial Order (ECF No. 103) for the parties' submission of various pre-trial filings and related pre-trial tasks shall be continued to July 8, 2019. In the event that any additional trial dates immediately preceding or following July 22, 2019 become available, the Court will provide those dates to the parties in order to bring the estimated trial length in this case back to the originally allotted eight (8) days

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