Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Coppola v. Paragon Cleaners, 1:11-CV-01257-AWI-BAM. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160810577 Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING CLOSE OF EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINE BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . This stipulation is made by and between Plaintiffs Gary Coppola, Gary Coppola as successor trustee of the Viola M. Coppola Irrevocable Trust, and Gary Coppola as trustee of the Anthony M. Coppola Trust; Defendant Richard Laster; Defendant Paragon Cleaners, Inc.; Defendants the Jane Higgins Nash Trust, Jane Nash as Executor of the Estate of Decatur Higgins AKA the Est
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING CLOSE OF EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINE

This stipulation is made by and between Plaintiffs Gary Coppola, Gary Coppola as successor trustee of the Viola M. Coppola Irrevocable Trust, and Gary Coppola as trustee of the Anthony M. Coppola Trust; Defendant Richard Laster; Defendant Paragon Cleaners, Inc.; Defendants the Jane Higgins Nash Trust, Jane Nash as Executor of the Estate of Decatur Higgins AKA the Estate of Mabel Elaine Higgins, Nash Properties LLC, David H. Nash and Richard P. Nash as the successor trustees of the Jane Nash Trust, a trust created under the terms of the Last Will and Testament of Mabel Elaine Higgins, formerly known as the Mabel Elaine Higgins Testamentary Trust and commonly known as the Jane Higgins Nash Trust; as well as Defendant City of Visalia (collectively "Parties").

The Parties hereby stipulate to extend the expert discovery cut-off date, currently scheduled for September 23, 2016, to October 5, 2016. All other deadlines shall remain the same.

The Parties respectfully request that the Court grant this short extension of the close of expert discovery set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order, and the stipulated orders on certain expert deadlines [Documents 320, 374, 398, and 423] to consolidate the deadlines in this case with those in the Mission Linen Case1. All but one of the remaining parties are counsel in both the Coppola and Mission Linen cases, which have similar factual and technical issues. Good cause exists because counsel in the Mission Linen case were required to meet and confer on deadlines because trial was recently re-set per the Court's calendar and the parties have reached the same agreement and wish to combine the depositions of overlapping experts in the interest of conserving resources. No other deadlines will be affected or modified as a result of this stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Mission Linen Supply v. City of Visalia, Case No. 1:15-cv-00672-AWI-EPG
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