Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. YRC Inc. et al

Filing 18

STIPULATION re Continuance of Hearing on Parties' Summary Judgment Motions; and ORDER Thereon signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/22/2015. Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment currently set for 2/13/2015 is CONTINUED to 3/13/2015 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 10 (GSA) before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin.(Martinez, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 Kathleen C. Jeffries (State Bar #110362) SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 460 Pasadena, California 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 Facsimile: (626) 795-4790 kjeffries@scopelitis.com Attorneys for Defendants YRC INC. and ROADWAY REVERSE LOGISTICS, INC. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY, a corporation, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) YRC INC., a corporation; ROADWAY ) REVERSE LOGISTICS, INC., a ) corporation; and DOES ONE through ) FIFTEEN, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ ) Case No. 1:13−CV−01996−GSA STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON PARTIES’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS; AND ORDER THEREON Current Hearing Date: February 13, 2015 Requested Hearing Date: March 13, 2015 (ECF No. 17) 18 19 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this 20 action, plaintiff Starr Indemnity & Liability Company (“Starr Indemnity”) and 21 defendants YRC Inc. (“YRC”) and Roadway Reverse Logistics, Inc. (collectively 22 “defendants”), through their respective counsel of record, that the hearing on 23 the summary judgment motions of both parties, currently set for February 13, 24 2015, be continued to March 13, 2015; and that the corresponding opposition 25 and reply deadlines be continued to February 27, 2015 and March 6, 2014, 26 respectively. 27 1 _____________________________________________________________________________ 28 STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON PARTIES’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS; AND ORDER THEREON 1 Good cause exists for this joint request. After exchanging 2 summary judgment motions, the parties have agreed to mediate the case in an 3 effort to resolve the matter in its entirety without the need to file further 4 pleadings or for the Court to prepare for hearing on the motions. The parties 5 have mutually selected a mediator and are currently in the process of 6 scheduling a mediation session by mid-February 2015. 7 8 Dated: January 21, 2015 9 10 SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP By: 11 12 13 14 Dated: January 21, 2015 /s/ Kathleen C. Jeffries Kathleen C. Jeffries Attorneys for Defendants YRC INC. and ROADWAY REVERSE LOGISTICS, INC. GIBSON ROBB & LINDH, LLP 15 16 17 18 By: /s/ Konstantin Savransky (as authorized on January 21, 2015) Konstantin Savransky Attorneys for Plaintiff STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON PARTIES’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS; AND ORDER THEREON ORDER 1 2 Based upon the stipulation by and between the parties, and good cause 3 appearing, the Court orders that the hearing on the summary judgment 4 motions of both parties, currently set for February 13, 2015, is continued to 5 March 13, 2015; and the corresponding opposition and reply deadlines are 6 continued to February 27, 2015 and March 6, 2014, respectively. The parties 7 are encouraged to keep the Court apprised of any settlement developments 8 and may request additional extensions for mediation or settlement exigencies, 9 as needed. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 12 13 14 January 22, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 _____________________________________________________________________________ STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON PARTIES’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS; AND ORDER THEREON

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?