Filed: May 17, 2016
Latest Update: May 17, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs Deepak Mehta, Kiran Mehta, Mehta Enterprises, Inc., and Deepak Enterprises, Inc. (collectively "Defendants" or the "Mehtas"), and Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Jack in the Box Inc. ("JIB") (collectively, the "Parties"), stipulate as follows: 1. On April 23, 2015 JIB filed a Motion For Summary Judgment And/Or Partial Summary Judgment (the "Summary Judgment Mot
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE EDWARD J. DAVILA , District Judge . Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs Deepak Mehta, Kiran Mehta, Mehta Enterprises, Inc., and Deepak Enterprises, Inc. (collectively "Defendants" or the "Mehtas"), and Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Jack in the Box Inc. ("JIB") (collectively, the "Parties"), stipulate as follows: 1. On April 23, 2015 JIB filed a Motion For Summary Judgment And/Or Partial Summary Judgment (the "Summary Judgment Moti..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs Deepak Mehta, Kiran Mehta, Mehta Enterprises, Inc., and Deepak Enterprises, Inc. (collectively "Defendants" or the "Mehtas"), and Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Jack in the Box Inc. ("JIB") (collectively, the "Parties"), stipulate as follows:
1. On April 23, 2015 JIB filed a Motion For Summary Judgment And/Or Partial Summary Judgment (the "Summary Judgment Motion"), which was heard by this Court on May 28, 2015. (Docket Nos. 205, 248).
2. This Court has not yet issued a ruling on the Summary Judgment Motion, which-if granted—would resolve all or part of the Parties' claims in this case. If not granted, the Parties would need to prepare for trial. The uncertainty surrounding this Court's ruling on the Summary Judgment Motion places the underlying restaurants in an indeterminate status and adversely impacts both Parties because the Parties do not have an adjudication of their rights, if any, under the Franchise and Lease Agreements. Moreover, the nature, scope and direction of any settlement discussions between the Parties will be impacted significantly by this Court's ruling. As a result, the Parties placed their settlement discussions (as well as their completion of discovery) on hold pending a ruling on the Summary Judgment Motion.
3. To allow the Parties to make the necessary preparations going forward with respect to the underlying restaurants, settlement, and other issues, the Parties request that this Court provide some guidance as to when it will rule on the Summary Judgment Motion. Pursuant to Local Rules 7-11 and 7-12, the Parties request that this Court schedule a Case Management Conference so that the Parties can discuss the status of this case. Because counsel for both parties practice outside of the Northern District of California, the Parties request that they be petmitted to appear at the Case Management Conference by telephone.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this Court shall conduct a Case Management Conference on June 23, 2016 at at 10:00a.m. The Parties shall be permitted to appear at the Case Management Conference by telephone.
