Stimmell, et al. v. Harris, et al.
Filing
11
STIPULATION and ORDER Continuing Mandatory Scheduling Conference: Initial SCHEDULING CONFERENCE is continued from 4/24/12 to May 8, 2012 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. A JOINT Scheduling Confer ence Report, carefully prepared and executed by all counsel, shall be electronically filed in full compliance with the requirements set forth in the Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference, one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference, and a copy shall be e-mailed, in WordPerfect or Word format, to bamorders@caed.uscourts.gov. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/11/2012. (Herman, H)
1
2
3
Brian C. Leighton, CA BAR #090907
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN C. LEIGHTON
701 Pollasky Avenue
Clovis, CA 93612
Office: (559) 297-6190
Facsimile: (559) 297-6194
4
5
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Alan Stimmell and Pamela Stimmell
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALAN STIMMELL, an individual, PAMELA
STIMMELL, an individual
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, State of
California (in her official capacity as the Attorney
General of the State of California); JUAN
MORALES, a law enforcement Special Agent of
the California Department of Justice, Office of
Attorney General, but sued herein in his personal
capacity; FRANK NAVARRO, a law enforcement
Special Agent of the California Department of
Justice, Office of Attorney General, but sued herein
in his personal capacity; LUKE POWELL, a law
enforcement Special Agent of the California
Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General,
but sued herein in his personal capacity; and other
unknown state agents, sued in their personal
capacity as DOES 1through 25, inclusive,
22
23
24
25
Defendants.
_________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00155-LJO-BAM
STIPULATION AND ORDER
CONTINUING MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
NEW DATE: May 8, 2012
TIME:
8:30 a.m.
CTRM:
8 (6th floor)
Barbara A. McAuliffe
U.S. Magistrate Judge
WHEREAS a Mandatory Scheduling Conference is currently scheduled in this matter on April
24, 2012, at the hour of 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Magistrate Judge, Barbara A. McAuliffe;
26
WHEREAS Plaintiffs’ counsel is currently involved in a bench trial in the Sacramento County
27
Superior Court, before the Honorable Judge Raymond M. Cadei with said bench trial going into its third
28
week starting April 16, 2012;
1
2
WHEREAS Defendants’ counsel has consented to a continuance of this Mandatory Scheduling
Conference due to the unavailability of Plaintiffs’ counsel;
3
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties to the above-entitled matter, through their
4
respective counsel of record herein, that the Mandatory Scheduling Conference be continued to May 8,
5
2012, at the hour of 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom Eight (8), before the Honorable Magistrate Judge, Barbara
6
A. McAuliffe.
7
8
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: April 11, 2012
/S/ BRIAN C. LEIGHTON_____
BRIAN C. LEIGHTON, Attorney for
Plaintiffs
9
10
11
DATED: April 11, 2012
/S/ JOHN M. FESER, JR._____
JOHN M. FESER, JR, Deputy
Attorney General
Attorney for Defendant
12
13
14
15
ORDER
16
Having reviewed the parties Stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Scheduling
17
Conference is continued from April 24, 2012 to May 8, 2012 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge
18
McAuliffe. A JOINT Scheduling Conference Report, carefully prepared and executed by all counsel,
19
shall be electronically filed in full compliance with the requirements set forth in the Order Setting
20
Mandatory Scheduling Conference, one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference, and a copy
21
shall be e-mailed, in WordPerfect or Word format, to bamorders@caed.uscourts.gov.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k
April 11, 2012
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?