Shaw v. CST California Stations, Inc., et al

Filing 12

STIPULATION and ORDER 11 to Continue Mandatory Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/13/2014. Initial Scheduling Conference CONTINUED to 9/29/2014 at 09:00 AM in Bakersfield at 510 19th Street (JLT) before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Tanya E. Moore, SBN 206683
MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.
332 North Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Cecil Shaw
GARRETT R. WYNNE, CASB No. 220665
JENNIFER M. PORTER, CASB No. 261508
KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN
A Professional Corporation
450 Pacific Avenue
San Francisco, California 94133
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
CST CALIFORNIA STATIONS, INC., dba CORNER STORE #3074; VALERO
CALIFORNIA
RETAIL COMPANY

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18

CECIL SHAW,

19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
vs.
CST CALIFORNIA STATIONS, INC., dba
CORNER STORE #3074; VALERO
CALIFORNIA RETAIL COMPANY;

23
24
25

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-00699 --- JLT
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
MANDATORY SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE TO ALLOW PARTIES
TO EXHAUST SETTLEMENT EFFORTS;
ORDER
(Doc. 11)

26
27
28

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

Page 1

1
2

WHEREAS, a scheduling conference in this matter is currently set for August 25,
2014;

3

WHEREAS, counsel for plaintiff, Cecil Shaw (“Plaintiff”), has a scheduling conflict on

4

August 25, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. and must appear on two separate matters in the Central District at

5

the same time;

6

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and defendants, CST California Stations, Inc. and Valero

7

California Retail Company (collectively “Defendants,” and together with Plaintiff, “the

8

Parties”) are engaged in productive and meaningful settlement discussions and would like to

9

exhaust such efforts prior to incurring the fees required to prepare the joint scheduling report

10

and participate in the scheduling conference, as well as conserve valuable court resources;

11

WHEREAS, the Parties anticipate that they will have had an opportunity to fully

12

explore (informally) settlement by September 26, 2014, and that if a settlement cannot be

13

reached by said date, the scheduling conference should take place and a scheduling order

14

issued;

15

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate that the Mandatory Scheduling

16

Conference currently set for August 25, 2014 be continued to a date after September 26, 2014 at

17

the Court’s convenience. The Parties further stipulate that they will participate in the

18

Scheduling Conference telephonically via CourtCall.

19

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

20

Dated: August 13, 2014

MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.
/s/ Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Cecil Shaw

21
22
23
24

/s/ Jennifer M. Porter
GARRETT R. WYNNE
JENNIFER M. PORTER
KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN
Attorneys for Defendants
CST CALIFORNIA STATIONS, INC.,
dba CORNER STORE #3074; VALERO
CALIFORNIA RETAIL COMPANY

25
26
27
28

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

Page 2

1

ORDER

2

The parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Status Conference re: Consent/Mandatory

4

Scheduling Conference1 currently set for August 25, 2014 be continued to September 29, 2014

5

at 9:00 a.m.

6
7

All other provisions of the Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference (Doc. 4)
apply, including that counsel may appear via CourtCall are authorized.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:

August 13, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Counsel are advised that the conference on September 29, 2014 will address only the issue of magistrate judge
consent unless full consent is obtained before that date or at the hearing. If full consent is not received, a District
Judge in Sacramento will be assigned and then will determine whether a further scheduling conference will occur
or whether the matter will be scheduled based upon the information contained in the joint scheduling conference
report filed in advance of the September hearing.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

Page 3