Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 3:15-cv-03418-EMC. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20171207938 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2017
Summary: CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING DECEMBER 14, 2017 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiffs Marcus A. Roberts, Kenneth A. Chewey, and Ashley M. Chewey and Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T") hereby stipulate and request as follows: 1. On March 13, 2017, the Court entered an order scheduling a case management conference in this matter for December 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. and setting a December 7, 2017 deadline for the parties to file
More

CORRECTED JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING DECEMBER 14, 2017 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs Marcus A. Roberts, Kenneth A. Chewey, and Ashley M. Chewey and Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T") hereby stipulate and request as follows:

1. On March 13, 2017, the Court entered an order scheduling a case management conference in this matter for December 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. and setting a December 7, 2017 deadline for the parties to file a joint case management statement. Dkt. No. 79.

2. This action is currently stayed. On April 27, 2016, the Court entered an order "grant[ing] AT&T's motion to compel arbitration" and "stay[ing] this action pending the resolution of the arbitration." Dkt. No. 60, at 18. Plaintiffs' appeal of that order, which the Ninth Circuit assigned case number 16-16915, is currently pending and was argued on October 17, 2017.

3. Because the action has been stayed and Plaintiffs' appeal of the Court's arbitration order remains pending, the parties respectfully request that the Court: (a) continue the case management conference currently scheduled for December 14, 2017; and (b) direct the parties to submit a joint status report within fourteen (14) days after the Court of Appeals rules on Plaintiffs' pending appeal.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I, Donald M. Falk, attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from all signatories.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, 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