Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Perry v. Chappell, 14-CV-04111 NC. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150107630 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 06, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Mark Stephen Perry (Plaintiff) and Defendant K. Chappell (Defendant), through their undersigned counsel of record, stipulate and agree as follows: 1. On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this action, filing his original complaint entitled Mark Stephen Perry v. Kevin Chappell, et al. (ECF No. 1.) 2. On September 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge Nathanial Cousins iss
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Mark Stephen Perry (Plaintiff) and Defendant K. Chappell (Defendant), through their undersigned counsel of record, stipulate and agree as follows:

1. On September 10, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this action, filing his original complaint entitled Mark Stephen Perry v. Kevin Chappell, et al. (ECF No. 1.)

2. On September 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge Nathanial Cousins issued the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Deadlines. (ECF No. 4). The Court scheduled the Case Management Conference for December 10, 2014, with the Case Management Statement due on December 3, 2014. (Id.)

3. On October 22, 2014, the Court issued Summons to Defendant and Instructions regarding service of process to the U.S. Marshal's Service for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 9.)

4. On December 2, 2014, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice continuing the Initial Case Management Conference to January 7, 2015 at 10:00 AM. (ECF No. 12.)

5. On December 10, 2014, Defendant executed a Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgment of Summons. (ECF No. 14.)

6. On December 31, 2014, Defendant answered Plaintiff's complaint. (ECF No. 21.)

7. On January 5, 2015, counsel for the parties conducted an ADR teleconference with the Northern District's ADR Program Director. After discussing the early stage of this case with the Director, the parties agreed to a further ADR conference on March 31, 2014.

8. Because Defendant has just answered Plaintiff's complaint and because the parties need to conduct their preliminary investigation concerning the case, counsel agree that a Case Management Conference is premature at this time. To allow the parties to assess the case and better use the Court's time and resources, the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the Initial Case Management Statement deadline and the Initial Case Management Conference date for a period of ninety (90) days.

ACCORDINGLY, the parties stipulate and respectfully request that the Court issue an order continuing the dates and deadlines set forth in the September 11, 2014 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order and the December 2, 2014 Clerk's Notice Continuing Case Management Conference as follows:

April 1, 2015 Case Conference Statement due April 8, 2015 Initial Case Management Conference

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Having reviewed and considered the Joint Stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the dates and deadlines set forth in the September 11, 2014 Initial Scheduling Order and the December 2, 2014 Clerk's Notice be continued as follows:

April 1, 2015 Case Conference Statement due April 8, 2015 Initial Case Management Conference

FootNotes


1. In accordance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), counsel for Defendant attests that concurrence in the filing of this stipulation has been obtained from Plaintiff's counsel.
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