MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. v. Apex Directional Drilling, LLC
Filing
22
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/29/14 re: 21 ORDERING that: i) the parties may postpone preparation of the required Rule 26(f) Joint Status Report until a time after the Court decides Apex's pending motion to dismiss; and, ii) should the Court deny Apex's motion to dismiss, the parties shall file their joint status report no later than sixty (60) days after the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. (Meuleman, A)
1
5
David A. Rabbino, CA State Bar #182291
Direct Dial: 503.802.2144
Direct Fax: 503.972.3844
Email: david.rabbino@tonkon.com
TONKON TORP LLP
1600 Pioneer Tower
888 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-2099
6
Attorneys for Defendant Apex Directional Drilling, LLC
2
3
4
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MP NEXLEVEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
APEX DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC,
15
Case No. 1:14−CV−00857−JAM-BAM
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO
RESCHEDULE RULE 26(f)
CONFERENCE
AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
Defendant Apex Directional Drilling, LLC, and Plaintiff MP Nexlevel of California, Inc
through their attorneys of record, stipulate as follows:
1.
Pursuant to Judge Mendez's Order, Dkt. 16, the parties are required to meet and
20
confer within 60 days of the service of the complaint as required by Rule 26(f) to prepare and
21
submit to the Court a joint status report and discovery plan.
22
2.
Defendant Apex has filed a motion to dismiss, presently set for hearing on
23
September 17, 2014 (Dkt. 18). The parties have met and conferred, and agree that postponing the
24
Rule 26(f) conference and preparation of the required joint status report until after the Court rules
25
on the pending motion is in their collective interest and would save time and resources.
26
3.
If Apex's motion is denied, the parties request that the Court schedule the
27
Mandatory Scheduling Conference no sooner than sixty (60) days after issuing its decision, and
28
the parties agree they will then proceed to conduct the required meet and confer and would have
-1STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO RESCHEDULE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
CASE NO.: 1:14−CV−00857−JAM-BAM
1242594v.1
1
2
the required joint status report and discovery plan prepared in advance of the status conference.
4.
Therefore, Apex and MP Nexlevel hereby stipulate, and request that the Court
3
order that: i) the parties may postpone preparation of the required Rule 26(f) Joint Status Report
4
until a time after the Court decides Apex's pending motion to dismiss; and, ii) should the Court
5
deny Apex's motion to dismiss, the Mandatory Scheduling Conference be rescheduled for a date
6
ideally no earlier than sixty (60) days after the Court's ruling.
7
8
IT IS SO STIPULATED
9
10
Dated: August 29, 2014
TONKON TORP, LLP
11
12
/s/ David Rabbino_____________________
David Rabbino, Esq. (SBN 181291)
Attorneys for Defendant
APEX DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, LLC
13
14
15
16
Dated: Authorized August 29, 2014
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN &
DICKER LLP
17
/s/ Ben Patrick
Ben Patrick, Esq. (SBN 244092)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MP NEXLEVEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO RESCHEDULE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
1242594v.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ORDER
The foregoing Stipulation of the parties is hereby approved, and pursuant to the
Stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
i) the parties may postpone preparation of the required Rule 26(f) Joint Status Report until
a time after the Court decides Apex's pending motion to dismiss; and,
ii) should the Court deny Apex's motion to dismiss, the parties shall file their joint status
report no later than sixty (60) days after the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
8
9
BY THE COURT:
10
11
Dated: 8/29/2014
12
13
/s/ John A. Mendez____________
Hon. John A. Mendez
United States District Court Judge
14
035940/00017/5851109v1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO RESCHEDULE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
1242594v.1
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?