Tavares v. Cargill, Incorporated, 1:18-cv-00792-DAD-SKO. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190205878
Visitors: 2
Filed: Feb. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER CONTINUING MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the parties' "Stipulation to Extend Time to Submit Joint Rule 26(F) Report," wherein the parties request that the Court continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference and deadline for filing the parties' Joint Scheduling Conference Report (the "Stipulation"). (Doc. 27.) The Court, having reviewed the parties' Stipulation, GRANTS the Stipulation and, pursuant to Local Rule 144 1 , hereb
Summary: ORDER CONTINUING MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the parties' "Stipulation to Extend Time to Submit Joint Rule 26(F) Report," wherein the parties request that the Court continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference and deadline for filing the parties' Joint Scheduling Conference Report (the "Stipulation"). (Doc. 27.) The Court, having reviewed the parties' Stipulation, GRANTS the Stipulation and, pursuant to Local Rule 144 1 , hereby..
More
ORDER CONTINUING MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the parties' "Stipulation to Extend Time to Submit Joint Rule 26(F) Report," wherein the parties request that the Court continue the Mandatory Scheduling Conference and deadline for filing the parties' Joint Scheduling Conference Report (the "Stipulation"). (Doc. 27.) The Court, having reviewed the parties' Stipulation, GRANTS the Stipulation and, pursuant to Local Rule 1441, hereby CONTINUES the Mandatory Scheduling Conference to April 9, 2019, at 9:45 AM in Courtroom 7, before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. The parties SHALL file their Joint Scheduling Report no later than seven days prior to the conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Stipulation erroneously makes reference to "Local Rule 16-2" as the pertinent Local Rule. In addition, the Stipulation failed to comply with Local Rule 137, which requires that a stipulation be accompanied by a proposed order, both filed and submitted to the Court. See L.R. 137(b). Counsel are advised to familiarize themselves with the current version of the Local Rules of this Court to ensure that, going forward, they are in compliance with those Rules.
Source: Leagle
