Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180306b12 Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION TO STAY TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . This Stipulation and proposed Order is entered into between Plaintiff JUSTIN SMITH ("Plaintiff") and Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. ("Defendant") (Plaintiff and Defendant all collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their counsel of record, as follows: WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a Class Action against Defendant in the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, Case No.
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION TO STAY

This Stipulation and proposed Order is entered into between Plaintiff JUSTIN SMITH ("Plaintiff") and Defendant GREYHOUND LINES, INC. ("Defendant") (Plaintiff and Defendant all collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their counsel of record, as follows:

WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a Class Action against Defendant in the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2017-00219188 on September 15, 2017;

WHEREAS Defendant removed Plaintiff's Action to the United States Superior Court for the Eastern District of California and filed a Notice of Removal on October 25, 2017;

WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand on November 21, 2017 and the Hearing for that Motion is scheduled for January 11, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 15th Floor of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California;

WHEREAS Defendant filed a Motion to Stay the Action on November 21, 2017 and the Hearing for that Motion is scheduled for January 11, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 15th Floor of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California;

WHEREAS Defendant has not yet filed an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand;

WHEREAS Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay the Action;

WHEREAS the Court entered an order on December 18, 2017 extending the hearing date for Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Defendant's Motion to Stay per the Parties' stipulation until March 22, 2018;

WHEREAS the Parties agree it is in their best interest to further continue the motion hearings in order to discuss further about settlement between the Parties. Filing motions will be expensive and such efforts can be used to determine whether settlement in feasible;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Parties, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

1. That the Court will continue Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Hearing currently set for 2:00 p.m. on March 22, 2018 to 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2018;

2. That the Court will continue Defendant's Motion to Stay Hearing currently set for 2:00 p.m. on March 22, 2018 to 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2018;

3. That all opposition and reply briefs due to be filed in connection with the Motion to Remand and/or Motion to Stay will be now be due based on the newly set hearing dates and in accordance with Local Rules; and

4. That nothing in this stipulation and proposed order, or the act of entering into this stipulation and proposed order, shall prejudice Plaintiff or Defendant in any argument they may otherwise make in the opposition and/or reply briefs.

ORDER

The COURT, having considered the above stipulation and finding good cause, HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Hearing currently set for 2:00 p.m. on March 22, 2018 is continued to 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2018;

2. Defendant's Motion to Stay Hearing currently set for 2:00 p.m. on March 22, 2018 is continued to 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2018;

3. All opposition and reply briefs due to be filed in connection with the Motion to Remand and/or Motion to Stay will be now be due based on the newly set hearing dates and in accordance with Local Rules; and

4. Nothing in this stipulation order, or the act of entering into this stipulation and order, shall prejudice Plaintiff or Defendant in any argument they may otherwise make in the opposition and/or reply briefs.

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