Lewis, et al vs. Vision Value, LLC

Filing 17

STIPULATION and ORDER GRANTING the parties' request for an extension of time to 11/4/2011 for defendant to file a responsive pleading; order signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/5/2011. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Hugh A. McCabe, SBN 131828
David P. Hall, SBN 196891
NEIL, DYMOTT, FRANK,
MCFALL & TREXLER
A Professional Law Corporation
1010 Second Avenue, Suite 2500
San Diego, CA 92101-4959
P 619.238.1712
F 619.238.1562
Lisa D. MacClugage, Pro Hac Vice Pending
TRIPP SCOTT
110 SE Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
P 954.525.7500
F 954.761.8475

11
12

Attorneys for Defendant
VISION VALUE LLC dba STANTON OPTICAL

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ANNALISA LEWIS, individually, and
)
MICHELLE CATBAGAN, individually,
)
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
VISION VALUE, LLC dba STANTON
)
OPTICAL, and DOES 1 through 100,
)
Inclusive,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

CASE NO. 11-CV-01055 LJO MJS
STIPULATION AND ORDER
EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANT
VISION VALUE, LLC’S TO RESPOND
TO THE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Hon. Lawrence J. O’Neill
Ctrm: 4

24
25

Pursuant to Local Rules 143 and 144, Plaintiffs Annalisa Lewis, Michelle Catbagan

26

and Defendant Vision Value, LLC dba Stanton Optical, by and through their attorneys of

27

record, hereby submit this Stipulation to Extend the Time to Respond to the First Amended

28

Complaint to November 4, 2011.
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

On September 23, 2011, the parties engaged in Rule 26 conference in preparation of

1
2

this case and in anticipate of the scheduled status conference. The parties agreed a cost

3

effective way to litigate this case was to engage in informal discovery and exchange of
4
5

documents. This way the parties could prepare for alternative dispute resolution, either

6

private mediation or through the Court. In light of this agreement, the parties further agree

7

Defendant Vision Value, LLC dba Stanton Optical’s responsive pleading should be filed on

8

or before November 4, 2011.
9
10

Dated:

October 5, 2011

MICHAEL MALK, ESQ. APC

11
12

By:
13
14
15

/s Michael Malk
Michael Malk
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ANNALISA LEWIS and
MICHELLE CATBAGAN

16
17
18
19

Dated:

October 5, 2011

NEIL, DYMOTT, FRANK,
MCFALL & TREXLER
A Professional Law Corporation

20
21

By:

22
23
24
25

/s David P. Hall
Hugh A. McCabe
David P. Hall
Attorneys for Defendant
VISION VALUE LLC dba STANTON
OPTICAL

26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

ORDER

2

In light of the foregoing Stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court

3

approves the Stipulation. Defendant Vision Value, LLC dba Stanton Optical shall file its

4

responsive pleading on or before November 4, 2011.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated:

13

October 5, 2011

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

DEAC_Signature-END:

15

ci4d6

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT