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)

Download PDF
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?