Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Fox v. Vision Service Plan, 2:16-cv-02456-JAM-DB. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170626722 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING ORDER DATES JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff, Patricia Fox, O.D., and Defendant, Vision Service Plan ("VSP"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate, agree, and request as follows: RECITALS WHEREAS, this Court issued a scheduling order on December 14, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Court set the following schedule: Deadline/Hearing Due/Set Designation of Expert Witnesses 7/21/2017 Discove
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING ORDER DATES

Plaintiff, Patricia Fox, O.D., and Defendant, Vision Service Plan ("VSP"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate, agree, and request as follows:

RECITALS

WHEREAS, this Court issued a scheduling order on December 14, 2016; and

WHEREAS, the Court set the following schedule:

Deadline/Hearing Due/Set Designation of Expert Witnesses 7/21/2017 Discovery Deadline 09/29/2017 Dispositive Motion Deadline 11/07/2017 Final Pretrial Conference 01/26/2018 at 11:00 AM Jury Trial 3/12/2018 at 09:00 AM

WHEREAS, on February 24, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and issued the Preliminary Injunction; and

WHEREAS, Vision Service Plan appealed the Court's order to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; and

WHEREAS, the appeal challenges, among other things, the Court's legal ruling on whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts 28 CRC 1300.71.38, and the Court's legal rulings with respect to both procedural and substantive unconscionability; and

WHEREAS, the appellate briefing is now complete, but the 9th Circuit has indicated that it will set oral arguments in October 2017; and

WHEREAS, the ruling of the 9th Circuit is potentially determinative of one or more core legal issues in this case and/or could significantly affect the nature and scope of relevant evidence; and

WHEREAS, both plaintiff and defendant believe it would be in the best interest of the parties and the Court to allow the appeals process to be completed before proceeding to litigating and bringing the matter to trial and before investing substantial amounts of time and money into discovery, expert witnesses, depositions, and dispositive motions; and

WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have met and conferred and both believe it would be appropriate to continue the pending Scheduling Order dates for at least six months to allow time to obtain the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, through counsel, stipulate and request that the Court continue the dates set in the Dec. 14, 2016, scheduling order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed the stipulation of the parties, and finding good cause to continue the dates as requested, hereby orders as follows:

The new dates shall be as follows:

Deadline/Hearing New Due/Set Designation of Expert Witnesses 2/2/2018 and 2/9/2018 Discovery Deadline 4/6/2018 Dispositive Motion filing Deadline 5/8/2018 Dispositive motion hearing 6/5/2018 Joint pretrial statement due 7/20/2018 Final Pretrial Conference 7/27/2018 at 11:00 a.m. Jury Trial 9/10/2018 at 9:00 a.m.
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