Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MAMIGONIAN v. BIGGS, 2:13-cv-980 WBS DAD. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140912780 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2014
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESET HEARING DATE WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. Pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties (Docket No. 43), this Court previously set a hearing date of Monday, October 6, 2014 for argument on the parties' pending cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docket No. 45). Undersigned counsel for Plaintiff respectfully request a modification of that hearing schedule to move the hearing date back by two weeks, and counsel for Defendants do not oppose.
More

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESET HEARING DATE

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties (Docket No. 43), this Court previously set a hearing date of Monday, October 6, 2014 for argument on the parties' pending cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docket No. 45). Undersigned counsel for Plaintiff respectfully request a modification of that hearing schedule to move the hearing date back by two weeks, and counsel for Defendants do not oppose. The reason for this request is that two counsel for Plaintiff—lead counsel Stuart Bartow, and counsel Bryan James, both of whom are representing Plaintiff on a pro bono basis—have since been scheduled to attend a proceeding in Wilmington, Delaware beginning the morning of October 7, 2014, for a matter pending in the District of Delaware.

Although it may be physically possible for Plaintiff's counsel to argue at the hearing in Sacramento on the afternoon of October 6th and then catch a redeye flight from San Francisco that evening to arrive on the East Coast by early morning on October 7th, it would impose significant difficulty for counsel to do so and would also mean that Messrs. Bartow and James would need to travel to Delaware separately from other colleagues on the same litigation team.

From the Court's calendar, it appears that the Court has availability on the afternoon of Monday, October 20, 2014, to hear argument on the parties' pending cross-motions. Plaintiff's counsel are available at that time, and counsel for Defendants have indicated that they are available as well and therefore do not oppose this modification. Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel respectfully request that the hearing be reset for October 20, 2014 at 2 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the Court is able to hear argument on the pending cross-motions. The remainder of the case schedule would not be impacted by this modification, and the entirety of the delay relating to resetting the hearing would only be two weeks.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Unopposed Motion to Reset Hearing Date, the Court finds good cause to reset the hearing date on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the record to October 20, 2014, at 2 p.m. PST.

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