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

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING 13 Second Stipulation to Continue the Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/22/2014. Initial Scheduling Conference CONTINUED to 11/10/2014 at 08:30 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
SECOND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
MANDATORY SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE TO ALLOW PARTIES
TO EXHAUST SETTLEMENT EFFORTS;
ORDER
(Doc. 13)

26
27
28

SECOND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

Page 1

1
2

WHEREAS, a scheduling conference in this matter is currently set for September 29,
2014;

3

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Cecil Shaw (“Plaintiff”), and defendants, CST California

4

Stations, Inc. and Valero California Retail Company (collectively “Defendants,” and together

5

with Plaintiff, “the Parties”) are engaged in productive and meaningful settlement discussions

6

and have already agreed reached a tentative agreement on Plaintiff’s equitable claims pending a

7

resolution of his damages’ claim;

8

WHEREAS, the Parties would like the opportunity to complete the ongoing

9

negotiations prior to incurring the fees required to prepare the joint scheduling report and

10

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

11

WHEREAS, the Parties request another thirty (30) days to complete the ongoing

12

settlement negotiations, and that if a settlement cannot be reached by said date, the scheduling

13

conference should take place and a scheduling order issued;

14

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

15

Conference currently set for September 29, 2014 be continued to a date after October 27, 2014

16

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

17

Scheduling Conference telephonically via CourtCall.

18

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

19

Dated: September 22, 2014

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

20
21
22
23

/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

24
25
26
27
28

SECOND 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/1Mandatory

4

Scheduling Conference currently set for September 29, 2014 be continued to November 10,

5

2014 at8:30 a.m. in the Bakersfield Courthouse located at 510 - 19th Street, Suite 200,

6

Bakersfield, California, before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston. The parties are directed to

7

file their joint scheduling report no later than November 3, 2014.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may appear telephonically at the

9

scheduling conference by arranging their appearances through CourtCall and emailing

10

chambers the CourtCall information and confirmation. The parties shall indicate on the face

11

page of their joint scheduling report that appearances shall be made telephonically.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

September 22, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Unless the parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction before the hearing, the hearing on November 10, 2014
will be to provide the parties additional information to assist them in assessing whether consent makes sense for
their case. If there is consent, the case will be scheduled at that time.
SECOND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER

Page 3