Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

SCHMIDT v. SHASTA COUNTY MARSHAL'S OFFICE, 2:14-CV-02471-MCE. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20161024805 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 19, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDDGMENT MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 230(f), Defendants Superior Court of California, County of Shasta 1 and Joel Dean (collectively, "Defendants") and Plaintiffs Jaime Schmidt, Debra Knowles, Elizabeth Sampson and Ryan Henrioulle ("Plaintiffs") hereby stipulate and agree as follows. WHEREAS, on August 25, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDDGMENT

Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 230(f), Defendants Superior Court of California, County of Shasta1 and Joel Dean (collectively, "Defendants") and Plaintiffs Jaime Schmidt, Debra Knowles, Elizabeth Sampson and Ryan Henrioulle ("Plaintiffs") hereby stipulate and agree as follows.

WHEREAS, on August 25, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative partial summary judgment and scheduled a hearing on that motion for October 20, 2016. (ECF No. 25.)

WHEREAS, on September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application requesting an extension of time to file their opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion as well as a continuance of the October 20, 2016 hearing scheduled on that motion. (ECF No. 32.)

WHEREAS, on October 7, 2016, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs' ex parte application and rescheduled the hearing on Defendants' summary judgment motion for November 17, 2016. (ECF No. 39.)

WHEREAS, counsel for Defendants are not available on the newly-rescheduled November 17, 2016 hearing date due to prior commitments. They are, however, available on the Court's next available hearing date — i.e., December 1, 2016. Counsel for Plaintiffs are likewise available on December 1, 2016.

NOW THEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the November 17, 2016 hearing on Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25) to December 1, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

I hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence for the filing of this document for any signatures indicated by a "conformed" signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Erroneously sued herein as Shasta County Marshal's Office.
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