Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SHAW v. A.B. BRAR, INC., 1:13-CV-00457-LJO-GSA. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130626c88 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 25, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR ALL DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND CONTINUING MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge. WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Cecil Shaw ("Plaintiff") and Defendants A.B. Brar, Inc., a California corporation dba Tiny Mart #1, and 3441 South Willow Investment, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (collectively "Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties") stipulated to an extension of time wherein Defendants' response to the C
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR ALL DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND CONTINUING MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Cecil Shaw ("Plaintiff") and Defendants A.B. Brar, Inc., a California corporation dba Tiny Mart #1, and 3441 South Willow Investment, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (collectively "Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties") stipulated to an extension of time wherein Defendants' response to the Complaint is currently due on or before July 1, 2013;

WHEREAS, the Mandatory Scheduling Conference is currently set for July 2, 2013, and the Mandatory Joint Scheduling Conference Statement must therefore be filed on or before June 25, 3013;

WHEREAS, the parties are involved in meaningful settlement negotiations and wish to avoid incurring additional fees and unnecessarily utilizing judicial resources while they explore, and hopefully finalize, a settlement.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. To an additional extension of time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint herein, through and including July 19, 2013, which extension exceeds the maximum 28 days permissible without leave of Court; and

2. That the mandatory scheduling conference currently set for July 2, 2013 be continued to a date after July 26, 2013, at the Court's convenience.

ORDER

The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' response to the Complaint herein is now due on or before July 19, 2013.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for July 2, 2013 is continued to August 7, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 10. The Scheduling Conference Statement is to be filed no less than seven (7) days prior to the date of the conference.

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