STIPULATION  [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DEADLINES

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff/ Counter-Defendant STEVEN A. GRAY (sometimes hereinafter "Plaintiff GRAY"), Defendant/Counter-Claimant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (sometimes hereinafter "Defendant USA"), and Counter-Defendant MANUEL D. MARTINEZ (sometimes hereinafter "Counter-Defendant MARTINEZ") by and through their attorneys of record, that GOOD CAUSE exists and the parties request that the Court continue the pretrial and trial deadlines based on the following:

1. The suit involves liability for the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty for quarters ending March 31, 2007, September 30, 2007, December 31, 2007, March 31, 2008, and June 2008 as to federal employment taxes owed by Ace Roofing, Inc., a California corporation owned by Manuel Martinez.

2. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant GRAY disputes allegations that he was a responsible officer of Ace Roofing, Inc. and allegations that he willfully failed to collect, account for or turn over withholding and F.I.C.A. taxes with respect to Ace Roofing's employees for said periods. Mr. GRAY asserts that he was not a "Responsible Person" nor was he "Willful" within the meaning of 26 U.S.C § 6672 and the applicable court cases there under, nor under any other federal law provision. Counter-Defendant MARTINEZ seeks a determination that he is not liable as a "responsible person" under the Internal Revenue Code Section 6672 for payment of taxes or penalties owed by Ace Roofing, Inc.

3. Plaintiff GRAY has filed a Certification of Interested Entities or Persons as follows:

4. Counter-Defendant MARTINEZ has filed a Certification of Interested Entities or Persons as follows:

5. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), good cause exist for the Court to modify the July 22, 2011 Status Conference Order Setting Times For Compliance With Certain Rules of Court.

6. At the time of the Initial Status Conference, the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations and expected that this matter would be resolved via settlement. Such expectation was disclosed on the record to the Honorable Judge Conti.

7. Although the parties agreed to early neutral evaluation in the joint case management statement filed herein on July 12, 2011, no mediation or other alternative dispute resolution orders have been issued. On July 22, 2011, expedited trial and trial related deadlines were set based on the Court's and the named parties' settlement expectations and belief that this case could be handled on an expedited basis with streamlined procedures assuming availability of pertinent IRS officers and employees for deposition and other discovery responses.

8. Settlement: Settlement negotiations have stalled and the parties have resumed the discovery process. This case can no longer be handled on an expedited basis with streamlined procedures for additional reasons discussed herein above and below. The expected length of trial in this matter is four (4) days.

9. Joinder of Parties & Amendment To Pleadings: Plaintiff contends that not all necessary and indispensible parties have been joined.1

10. Counter-Defendant MANUEL MARTINEZ did not appear in the above captioned matter until June 20, 2011 and the expedited calendar does not provide sufficient time to prepare for trial.

11. Early Neutral Evaluation Request: Plaintiff requests referral to mediation in these matters.

12. The parties are mindful of and respectful of the Court's July 22, 2011 Status Conference Order Setting Times For Compliance With Certain Rules of Court ("Status Conference Order") but continuing the discovery cut-off and pretrial deadlines is necessary for effective completion of discovery, participation in early neutral evaluation, and preparation for trial.

13. Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that this Court 1) modify its July 22, 2011 Status Conference Order, 2) continue the current discovery cut-off and all pre-trial and trial related dates for at least ninety (90) days including but not limited to the dates requested below, and 3) issue an order directing the parties to mediation:

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties' Stipulation And [Proposed] Order To Continue Pretrial And Trial Deadlines, and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pretrial and trial deadlines be continued as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.