Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hendricks v. Starkist Co., 4:13-cv-00729-HSG. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190213906 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2019
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . WHEREAS, the parties wish to update the Court as to the status of the Supplemental Submission requested by the Court during the January 31, 2019 Telephonic Case Management Conference; WHEREAS, during the Case Management Conference, the Court asked StarKist to endeavor to file the Supplemental Submission by February 7, 2019, but stated that StarKist could take additional time if needed;
More

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION

WHEREAS, the parties wish to update the Court as to the status of the Supplemental Submission requested by the Court during the January 31, 2019 Telephonic Case Management Conference;

WHEREAS, during the Case Management Conference, the Court asked StarKist to endeavor to file the Supplemental Submission by February 7, 2019, but stated that StarKist could take additional time if needed;

WHEREAS, the parties recently submitted, and the Court recently entered, a Stipulation and Order providing that the Supplemental Submission would be filed by February 11, 2019;

WHEREAS, due to unforeseen circumstances, StarKist's decision-makers have been unable to grant sign-off on the Supplemental Submission in time for a February 11, 2019 filing;

WHEREAS, StarKist's counsel fully intends and expects to file the Supplemental Submission on February 12, 2019, but in an abundance of caution requests a deadline of February 13, 2019;

THEREFORE, the parties agree that the Supplemental Submission shall be filed on or before February 13, 2019.

IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

ATTESTATION

I, J. Christopher Mitchell, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local Rule 5.1(i)(3), that concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.

ORDER

The Court has considered the above Stipulation and finds that it is in the interests of all Parties and in service of judicial economy and efficiency.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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