Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Dhaliwal et al

Filing 17

ORDER on Exparte Application for an Order Continuing Initial Scheduling Conference, Initial Scheduling Conference set for 2/15/2011 at 09:00 AM in Bakersfield at Truxtun (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/22/2010. (Kusamura, W)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Thomas P. Riley, SBN 194706 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS P. RILEY, P.C. First Library Square 1114 Fremont Avenue South Pasadena, CA 91030-3227 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. GURDIR K. DHALIWAL, et al. Defendants. TO THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. THURSTON, THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEY/S OF RECORD: Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., hereby applies ex parte for an order continuing the Initial Scheduling Conference presently set for Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:00 AM. As set forth below Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court continues the Initial Scheduling Conference to a new date of to a new date approximately Thirty (30) to Forty-Five (45) days forward. The request for the brief continuance is necessitated by the fact that Plaintiff has not yet perfected service of the initiating suit papers upon the Defendants Gurdir K. Dhaliwal and Sharnjit Kaur Dhaliwal, individually and d/b/a Papa O's Pizza; and Mantra Investments, LLC, an unknown business entity d/b/a Papa O's Pizza. As a result, Plaintiff's counsel has not conferred with the defendants concerning the claims, discovery, settlement, or any of the other pertinent issues involving the case itself or the preparation of a Joint Status Report. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00389-LJO-JLT PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; AND ORDER (Proposed)

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; AND ORDER CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00389-LJO-JLT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff recently identified an alternative address that it believes will be successful to serve its initiating suit papers, upon the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court continue the Initial Scheduling Conference, presently scheduled for Wednesday, December 29, 2010 at 9:00 AM to a new date approximately Thirty (30) to Forty-Five (45) days forward.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 21, 2010

/s/ Thomas P. Riley LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS P. RILEY, P.C. By: Thomas P. Riley Attorneys for Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.

/// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; AND ORDER CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00389-LJO-JLT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
DEAC_Signature-END:

ORDER On March 5, 2010, the Court issued its "Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference." That Order set forth the obligations of counsel related to the Scheduling Conference. The Order reads, "The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have been served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall diligently pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims." (Doc. 4 at 1, emphasis added) Notably, the Order sets forth the duty of counsel where it provides, SHOULD COUNSEL OR A PARTY APPEARING PRO SE FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, OR FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS AS SET FORTH ABOVE, AN EX PARTE HEARING MAY BE HELD AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL, DEFAULT, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED, OR SANCTIONS, INCLUDING CONTEMPT OF COURT, MAY BE IMPOSED AND/OR ORDERED. Id. at 8, emphasis in the original. Moreover, according to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(m), Plaintiff is obligated to serve the summons within 120 days after it is issued or the Court may, after notice to Plaintiff, dismiss the action, unless good cause for the failure is shown. Here, the Court has no information why the defendants have not been served. Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that there is good cause to continue the Scheduling Conference. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Scheduling Conference set for December 29, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. is vacated and reset for February 15, 2011 at 9:00 a.m at 1200 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 120, Bakersfield, CA before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston; 2. 3. 4. The parties must file a Joint Scheduling Report no later than February 8, 2011; Plaintiff is reminded of its obligation to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(m); Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve each defendant with a copy of this order with the

summons and complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:

December 22, 2010

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

9j7khijed

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; AND ORDER CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00389-LJO-JLT