Filed: Jan. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2014
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR MEDIATION SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. Pursuant to ADR L.R. 6-5(a), and Civil L.R. 6-2 and 7-1(a)(2), Plaintiff Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Oliso, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby jointly request that the Court extend the mediation deadline from February 18, 2014 to April 30, 2014. In support of this request, the parties state the following: 1. The Court appointed Benjamin Riley as the mediator for
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR MEDIATION SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. Pursuant to ADR L.R. 6-5(a), and Civil L.R. 6-2 and 7-1(a)(2), Plaintiff Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Oliso, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby jointly request that the Court extend the mediation deadline from February 18, 2014 to April 30, 2014. In support of this request, the parties state the following: 1. The Court appointed Benjamin Riley as the mediator for t..
More
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR MEDIATION
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
Pursuant to ADR L.R. 6-5(a), and Civil L.R. 6-2 and 7-1(a)(2), Plaintiff Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Oliso, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby jointly request that the Court extend the mediation deadline from February 18, 2014 to April 30, 2014. In support of this request, the parties state the following:
1. The Court appointed Benjamin Riley as the mediator for this case on December 30, 2013. (Dkt. No. 35.) Mr. Riley informed the parties' counsel that the ADR Unit has set a mediation deadline of February 18, 2014.
2. The parties' counsel and Mr. Riley conducted a pre-mediation telephone conference, pursuant to ADR L.R. 6-6, on January 16, 2014. During that call, counsel and Mr. Riley agreed that the parties would request an extension of the mediation deadline to April 30, 2014, so that the mediation would take place after the Court ruled on Defendant's then-pending summary judgment motion. Later that day, the Court issued its ruling denying Defendant's summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 40.)
3. Soon thereafter, Plaintiff identified what it believes to be a conflict of interest involving Defendant's counsel. The parties have exchanged their positions regarding this issue, and Plaintiff intends to file a Motion to Disqualify Defendant's counsel within the next seven days.
4. The parties agree that the mediation should occur after the Court has ruled on Plaintiff's forthcoming Motion to Disqualify. The parties' counsel have discussed this issue with Mr. Riley, the mediator, and he concurs with this position. Pursuant to ADR L.R. 6-5(a), this Stipulation is being served on Mr. Riley. Mr. Riley has indicated that he will apprise the ADR Unit regarding this Stipulation.
5. The only previous time modification in this case was the parties' request that the Court reschedule the initial Case Management Conference from November 8, 2013 to November 22, 2013, which the Court granted. (Dkt. No. 21.)
6. No Scheduling Order has been entered in this case. The next Case Management Conference is scheduled for March 7, 2014. (Dkt. No. 30.)
7. Accordingly, the parties jointly request that the Court extend the mediation deadline from February 18, 2014 to April 30, 2014.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
