Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

MOORE v. HIENG, 1:14-CV-01968. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150309868 Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2015
Summary: SECOND STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TOM HIENG, GORDON K. TESSMAN, JEAN A. TESSMAN, DOUGLAS ARNOLD JORISSEN, KIMBER LEA JORISSEN, STACEY LANE WALTER AND RITHY SOK TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, AND TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE MICHAEL J. SENG , Magistrate Judge . WHEREAS, Plaintiff, RONALD MOORE ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants TOM HIENG, GORDON K. TESSMAN, JEAN A. TESSMAN, DOUGLAS ARNOLD JORISSEN, KIMBER LEA JORISSEN, STACEY LANE WALTER and RITHY SOK ("Defendant
More

SECOND STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TOM HIENG, GORDON K. TESSMAN, JEAN A. TESSMAN, DOUGLAS ARNOLD JORISSEN, KIMBER LEA JORISSEN, STACEY LANE WALTER AND RITHY SOK TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT, AND TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, RONALD MOORE ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants TOM HIENG, GORDON K. TESSMAN, JEAN A. TESSMAN, DOUGLAS ARNOLD JORISSEN, KIMBER LEA JORISSEN, STACEY LANE WALTER and RITHY SOK ("Defendants") acknowledge that the parties previously stipulated to an extension of time wherein Defendants' response to the First Amended Complaint is currently due on or before March 4, 2015;

WHEREAS, the above-referenced parties are engaged in meaningful settlement negotiations, and wish to avoid incurring additional fees and unnecessarily utilizing judicial resources while Defendants obtain and share with Plaintiff their CASp report(s), and while Plaintiff and Defendants explore, and hopefully finalize, a settlement as between them;

WHEREAS, the Mandatory Scheduling Conference is currently set for April 2, 2015, and the Mandatory Joint Scheduling Conference Statement must therefore be filed on or before March 26, 2015;

WHEREAS, the parties do not object to continuing the Mandatory Scheduling Conference;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. To an extension of time (i.e., a second extension which, in total, exceeds 28 days) for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint herein, through and including March 30, 2015, which extension exceeds the maximum 28 days permissible without leave of Court; and

2. That the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for April 2, 2015, be continued to a date after May 1, 2015, at the Court's convenience.

ORDER

The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' response to the First Amended Complaint is now due on or before March 30, 2015.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference currently set for April 2, 2015 is continued to May 7, 2015 at 10:30 AM, in Courtroom 6, before United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. The Joint Scheduling Conference Statement is to be filed no more 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